Michael Graybill vs County of Santa Barbara

Case Number

23CV02902

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 11/18/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motion for Evidentiary and/or Monetary

Tentative Ruling

Michael Graybill v. Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department

Case No. 23CV02902    

Hearing Date: November 18, 2024                            

MATTER:                Defendant’s Motion For Evidentiary And/Or Monetary And/Or Issue Sanctions

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Michael Graybill: Self Represented

                             For Defendant County Of Santa Barbara: Rachel Van Mullem, Julius Abanise, Office of the County Counsel

TENTATIVE RULING:

The  motion of defendant the County of Santa Barbara is granted.

1. Evidentiary sanctions are granted in favor of defendant County of Santa Barbara and against plaintiff Michael Graybill as follows:

            a. Plaintiff is precluded from presenting any evidence related to the subject matters or issues embraced by County’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One and Inspection Demands, Set One.

            b. Plaintiff is precluded from presenting evidence regarding any alleged physical mental or emotional injuries and the costs or bills related thereto.

            c. Plaintiff is precluded from presenting evidence regarding any alleged property damage.

            d. Plaintiff is precluded from presenting evidence regarding any alleged loss of income or earning capacity.

            e. Plaintiff is precluded from presenting evidence regarding any alleged detention or arrest without probable cause on January 11, 2023.

            f. Plaintiff is precluded from presenting evidence regarding any alleged use of excessive force either in the field or at the jail on January 11, 2023.

            g. Plaintiff is precluded from presenting evidence regarding any alleged violations of HIPAA.

            h. Plaintiff is precluded from presenting evidence regarding any alleged history of targeting of Plaintiff or abuse of authority by the County.

            i. Plaintiff is precluded from presenting evidence regarding any alleged violations of “civil rights” in August 2021.

2. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $355.77 are granted in favor of defendant County of Santa Barbara and against plaintiff Michael Graybill, to be paid to counsel for County of Santa Barbara, by plaintiff, on or before December 30, 2024.

3. Plaintiff shall provide complete, code-compliant responses to form interrogatories (set one), special interrogatories (set one), and demand for inspection of documents and things (set one), propounded by defendant the County of Santa Barbara, no later than December 9, 2024.

4. Defendant shall give formal notice of this ruling to plaintiff no later than November 20, 2024, and file proof of service with the court.

Background:

On July 7, 2023, plaintiff Michael Graybill filed a complaint in this matter alleging four causes of action against named defendant the County of Santa Barbara (erroneously sued as Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department) (the County). for: (1) general negligence; (2) intentional tort; (3) premises liability; and (4) civil rights violations. (Compl., ¶ 10(a), (c), (e), & (f).)

As alleged in the complaint:

On January 11, 2023, after plaintiff called the County Sheriff to report a threatening gesture, plaintiff was detained on his property located at 5610 Berkeley Road in Goleta, California, by officers of the County Sheriff. (Compl., Attachment at ¶¶ 2 & 3.) During the course of the detention, the County Sheriff’s officers used excessive force, abused their authority, harassed plaintiff, and implemented illegal practices and procedures. (Id. at ¶ 4.) In addition, the officers forced plaintiff to the ground inside a concrete isolation cell, cut off plaintiff’s clothing, implemented armlocks, and suffocated plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 7.) As a result of the excessive force used by officers of the County Sheriff, plaintiff sustained serious injuries. (Ibid.)

Other incidents occurred on July 12, 2021, when the County Sheriff’s officers violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) by releasing plaintiff’s medical information to the Santa Maria Times, and on August 10, 2021, when the officers violated plaintiff’s civil rights by failing to enforce the law when plaintiff was assaulted by Alex Graybill and by making medical statements to doctors in violation of HIPAA. (Compl., Attachment at ¶ 5.)

On September 11, 2023, the County filed its answer to plaintiff’s complaint generally denying its allegations and asserting thirteen affirmative defenses. Also on September 11, 2023, the County served its first set of discovery on plaintiff, consisting of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and inspection demands. (Abanise Dec., ¶ 2 & Exhs. 1-3.)

On November 15, 2023, the County filed an unopposed motion to compel plaintiff to respond, without objection, to the County’s set one form interrogatories (the FI), special interrogatories (the SI), and inspection demands (the RFP) (collectively, the discovery requests). On January 22, 2024, the court granted the motion to compel of the County and ordered plaintiff to provide, no later than March 1, 2024, verified responses to the FI, the SI, and the RFP, without objections. (Abanise Dec., ¶ 3 & Exh. 4.)

On March 8, 2024, the County filed a motion for an order seeking issue and evidentiary sanctions against plaintiff on the grounds that plaintiff failed to provide answers to the discovery requests as ordered by the court notwithstanding that plaintiff appeared at the hearing on the previous motion to compel, requested additional time to respond to the discovery requests, and was provided with notice of the court’s January 22, 2024, Minute Order. The County further argued that it has been prejudiced by plaintiff’s failure to answer the discovery requests because it has provided responses to plaintiff’s discovery enabling plaintiff to prepare his case while the County has been denied answers to its discovery requests. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion.

On April 29, 2024, the court denied the motion without prejudice but ordered plaintiff to respond to all discovery without objections no later than May 13, 2024. (Abanise Dec., ¶ 6 & Exh. 5.) Plaintiff did not provide responses. (Ibid.)

On July 29, 2024, the court once again ordered plaintiff to provide complete, code-compliant responses to the discovery, no later than August 19, 2024, and imposed monetary sanctions of $885.20. (Abanise Dec., ¶ 7 & Exh. 6.) To date plaintiff has not provided responses to the discovery requests. (Ibid.)

The County now, once again, moves for evidentiary and/or monetary and/or issue sanctions.

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the present motion.

Analysis:

If a party “fails to obey an order compelling further responses to interrogatories, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (e).)

If a party “fails to obey [an] order compelling a response [to a demand for production of documents], the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

“California’s pretrial discovery procedures are designed to minimize the opportunities for fabrication and forgetfulness, and to eliminate the need for guesswork about the other side’s evidence, with all doubts about discoverability resolved in favor of disclosure.” (Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1119.)

California discovery law authorizes a range of penalties for a party’s misuses of the discovery process, including monetary sanctions, evidentiary sanctions, issue sanctions, and terminating sanctions. (§§ 2023.010, 2023.030; Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390; Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991 (Doppes).)

Despite this broad discretion, it has long been recognized that the terminating - sanction is a drastic penalty. “A decision to impose the ultimate sanction - a judgment in the opposing party’s favor - should not be made lightly. ‘But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.’ ” (Parker v. Wolters Kluwer United States, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 285, 297, quoting Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280, overruled on another point in Mileikowsky v. West Hills Hospital & Medical Center (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1259, 1273.) “ ‘[S]anctions “should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.’ ” ” (Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 992.) The discovery statutes thus “evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.” (Ibid.)

Plaintiff has not offered any information to explain why he has continually failed to comply with the court’s previous orders to provide responses to the discovery.

Plaintiff has been ordered to respond to the discovery three times and monetary sanctions have been imposed. Plaintiff still refuses to respond to the discovery. Solely issuing monetary sanctions again would be futile. It is clear: plaintiff is unwilling to follow through with his discovery obligations, resulting from an action he filed, or orders of the court. The court will now issue evidentiary sanctions.

Evidentiary Sanctions:

The County seeks the following evidentiary sanctions:

“1. Plaintiff is precluded from presenting any evidence related to the subject matters or issues embraced by County’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One and Inspection Demands, Set One.

2. Plaintiff is precluded from presenting evidence regarding any alleged physical, mental or emotional injuries and the costs or bills related thereto;

3. Plaintiff is precluded from presenting evidence regarding any alleged property damage;

4. Plaintiff is precluded from presenting evidence regarding any alleged loss of income or earning capacity;

5. Plaintiff is precluded from presenting evidence regarding any alleged detention or arrest without probable cause on January 11, 2023;

6. Plaintiff is precluded from presenting evidence regarding any alleged use of excessive force either in the field or at the jail on January 11, 2023;

7. Plaintiff is precluded from presenting evidence regarding any alleged violations of HIPAA;

8. Plaintiff is precluded from presenting evidence regarding any alleged history of targeting of Plaintiff or abuse of authority by the County;

9. Plaintiff is precluded from presenting evidence regarding any alleged violations of “civil rights” in August 2021.” (Notice of Motion, p. 3, ll. 7-26.)

“Discovery sanctions serve to remedy the harm caused to the party suffering the discovery misconduct. [Citation.] Because discovery sanctions are not designed to punish, “ ‘ “sanctions should be tailored to serve that remedial purpose, should not put the moving party in a better position than he would otherwise have been had he obtained the requested discovery, and should be proportionate to the offending party’s misconduct.” ’ ” [Citation.]” (Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. Hennings (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 57, 74.)

The County has attached the subject discovery requests to counsel’s declaration as Exhibits 1-3. The court has reviewed the requests and they seek information and evidence that covers every category that the County is seeking to exclude by way of the request for evidentiary sanctions. Evidentiary sanctions will issue as requested.

Monetary Sanctions:

“The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

The County requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $710.80 as reasonable fees and expenses as a result of having to bring the current motion. The County has supported the request by including the declaration of Deputy County Counsel Julius Abanise. However, the requested amount includes anticipated time for replying to plaintiff’s opposition (which was not filed) and attending the hearing on the motion. This matter is scheduled for a case management conference at the same time as the hearing on this motion so no additional time will be added. Monetary sanctions will issue in the amount of $355.77.

No additional sanctions will issue at this time. However, plaintiff will once again be ordered to provide responses to the discovery requests. If he fails to do so, following a properly noticed, and procedurally correct, motion by the County, the court would be inclined to issue terminating sanctions in favor of the County.