Motion for Sanctions for Intentional Spoliation in California

On September 3, 2020, Plaintiff Nevarez filed a motion for terminating sanctions against Defendants pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030. Trial is set for February 10, 2020. PART Y ’ S REQUEST Plaintiff Nevarez asks the Court to issue terminatin g sanctions against Defendants for their intentional spoliation of evidence.

Terminating Sanctions are Not Warranted While a terminating sanction may be appropriate without any violation of a prior court order in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence (see R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd., supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 497), the Court here does not find intentional spoliation.

The intentional spoliation of evidence is a misuse of the discovery process, which then allows broad range of punishments, including monetary, issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions. (Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4th at 12.) Generally, discovery sanctions require the violation of a prior court order, including when sanctions are for spoliation of evidence. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1428 (New Albertsons).) No prior court order exists here.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating that this is an egregious case of intentional spoliation warranting the extreme remedy of terminating, issue, or evidentiary sanctions. Because the Court does not find issue, evidentiary, or terminating sanctions warranted, the Court similarly finds that monetary sanctions are not warranted.

Motion for Sanctions for Willful Spoliation of Evidence Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions against defendant California Department of Water Resources for willful spoliation of evidence is DENIED. Upon consideration of all papers filed by the parties, the Court does not find evidence of egregious, intentional spoliation of evidence meriting the severe sanctions, up to and including terminating sanctions, requested by plaintiffs.

Motion for Terminating Sanctions or, Alternatively, Issue or Evidentiary Sanctions for Intentional Spoliation of Evidence The court considered the motion, opposition, and reply. Background On March 28, 2017, plaintiff Akop Jack Ananyan (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint for negligence and premises liability against defendants Sarkis Semizyan, Marine Semizyan, and Semizyan IV, LLC (collectively “Defendants”).

Motion for Terminating Sanctions 2. Order to Show Cause The court denies Plaintiffs Antonio Araujo Vega and Oscar Rivas’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions against Defendants BKI, Hye Jin Ko, and Gap Sung Lee. Sanctions are denied. First, Plaintiffs are required to accept electronic service of documents and have themselves utilized electronic service.

“A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” (Id.) Discovery sanctions are issued to remedy discovery abuse, not to punish the offending party. (Id.) The sanctions should be proportionate to the offending party’s misconduct. (Id.)

A party moving for discovery sanctions based on the intentional destruction of evidence could argue that the mere fact that the evidence no longer exists supports an inference of intentional spoliation.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED. Moving party to give notice.

A party moving for discovery sanctions based on the intentional destruction of evidence could argue that the mere fact that the evidence no longer exists supports an inference of intentional spoliation.

This requires the party requesting sanctions to show prejudice. (Ibid.) “[W]here 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 sanctions.” (Mileikowsky v.

“A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” Id. Discovery sanctions are issued to remedy discovery abuse, not to punish the offending party. Id. The sanctions should be proportionate to the offending party’s misconduct. Id.

“A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” Id. Discovery sanctions are issued to remedy discovery abuse, not to punish the offending party. Id. The sanctions should be proportionate to the offending party’s misconduct. Id.

“A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” Id. Discovery sanctions are issued to remedy discovery abuse, not to punish the offending party. Id. The sanctions should be proportionate to the offending party’s misconduct. Id.

CONCLUSION The motion for sanctions is GRANTED in part. The Court will issue jury instruction CACI 204 pertaining to the intentional spoliation of the Explant device. The motion for sanctions is DENIED in all other regards. The motion for summary adjudication is DENIED in its entirety.

Motion for Sanctions At this time, Plaintiffs move for terminating sanctions and/or various other sanctions, contending Defendants spoliated the videotape evidence of the accident. They contend the evidence is not complete, as it jumps around in time and does not depict key images of the parties’ accident. Law Governing Spoliation of Evidence The intentional spoliation of evidence by a party to the litigation to which it is relevant is an unqualified wrong. (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v.

The facts concerning Plaintiff’s claim of intentional spoliation of evidence should be decided by the trier of fact after a full hearing at trial. At that point, the Court can address the parties’ requests. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is denied without prejudice. The Court also denies Defendant’s opposing request for monetary sanctions without prejudice.

This litigation also lacks the specific stipulation language regarding terminating sanctions discussed in Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 262, or the "egregious" conduct (intentional spoliation) in R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 497. There is no showing that a lesser sanction would be futile as to the instant discovery. (see Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1548 and Do It Urself Moving & Storage, Inc. v.

This litigation also lacks the specific stipulation language regarding terminating sanctions discussed in Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 262, or the "egregious" conduct (intentional spoliation) in R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 497. There is no showing that a lesser sanction would be futile as to the instant discovery. (see Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1548 and Do It Urself Moving & Storage, Inc. v.

Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215 held @ 1223 that intentional spoliation of evidence is a sanctionable misuse of discovery. For a terminating sanction to be used, the spoliation must be "egregious." Id. Sanctions are to remedy, not punish, discovery abuse and should not put the person in a better position than he would have been had he obtained the evidence. Id.

For the evidentiary inference to apply, all that must be proven is intentional spoliation. (Evid. Code, § 413 [inference may be drawn based on “willful suppression of evidence”].) Here, CMD’s notice of motion refers only to terminating sanctions and monetary sanctions and CMD does not ask the court to apply the evidentiary inference.

PARTIES’ REQUESTS Plaintiff asks the Court to issue terminating, issue, and/or evidentiary sanctions against Defendants for their intentional spoliation of evidence. Defendants ask the Court to issue $32.00 in sanctions against Plaintiff for having to file this opposition. LEGAL STANDARD “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.

Plaintiff moves for terminating sanctions, or in the alternative, for issue or evidentiary sanctions. However, Plaintiff has not submitted a separate statement in connection with the request for issue or evidentiary sanctions. Plaintiff’s motion for issue or evidentiary sanctions is therefore denied as procedurally defective. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(7).) [1] Thus, the Court considers Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for terminating sanctions only.

The Shanahans moved for sanctions based on spoliation of evidence. The store argued the court had no authority to issue the requested sanctions absent a failure to obey an order compelling discovery. (Id. at p. 1415.) The court agreed that absent a failure to obey an order compelling discovery, evidence or issue sanctions were not authorized by Sections 2031.310 and 2031.320 and no “statutory discovery sanctions” were available. (New Albertsons, Inc., supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 1428.)

Other remedies for spoliation include discovery sanctions, i.e., monetary sanctions, contempt sanctions, issue sanctions ordering that designated facts be taken as established or precluding the offending party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, evidence sanctions prohibiting the offending party from introducing designated matters into evidence, and terminating sanctions that include striking part or all of the pleadings, dismissing part or all of the action, or granting a default judgment

Because Plaintiff is now in possession of the video, neither evidence nor issue sanctions are appropriate. However, monetary sanctions in the amount requested are appropriate. It should be noted that the Hotel’s argument that the issue and evidence sanctions requested would not have been available if the video had, in fact, been destroyed has no merit. In its discussion regarding the unavailability of issue or evidence sanctions absent violation of a court order, the hotel ignores. (Williams v.

In the alternative, Movants reques t issue /evidentiary sanctions , and the addition of monetary sanctions. On August 22, 2024, Respondents filed their opposition disputing Movants characterization of the facts. On August 28, 2024, Movants filed a reply . II.

In the alternative, defendant requests terminating sanctions, evidentiary or issue sanctions, or monetary sanctions against plaintiff for intentional spoliation of evidence.

This requires the party requesting sanctions to show prejudice. (Ibid.) “[W]here 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 sanctions.” (Mileikowsky v.

The court then observed there are some circumstances where such sanctions are warranted absent a failure to comply with a court order. Id at 1424.

In cases of intentional spoliation, sanctions may be warranted in the first instance without a prior court order. (Williams, supra, 167 Cal. App. 4th at 1223.) “[A] party moving for discovery sanctions based on the spoliation of evidence must make an initial prima facie showing that the responding party in fact destroyed evidence that had a substantial probability of damaging the moving party’s ability to establish an essential element of his claim or defense.” (Id. at 1227.)

Savi’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Given that the Court has denied Kohlers request for terminating and discovery sanctions, the Court GRANTS State Farms request for sanctions against Kohler and its attorneys. /// /// ORDERS 1) Defendant/Cross-Complainant Kohler Co.s Motion for Sanctions for Spoilation of Evidence is DENIED. 2) Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant State Farm General Insurance Companys Request for Sanctions in the amount of $2,500 is GRANTED. 3) Kohler and its counsel, jointly and severally, are

Plaintiff moves for a terminating sanction, or in the alternative, for issue or evidentiary sanctions. Plaintiff has not submitted a separate statement in connection with her request for issue or evidentiary sanctions. Plaintiff’s motion for issue or evidentiary sanctions is therefore denied as procedurally defective. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(7).) Notwithstanding, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s motion for a terminating sanction.

Since terminating sanctions are only proper against parties in the same action, the motion is DENIED.

Issue and Evidentiary Sanctions Californias appellate court has recognized that a non-monetary sanction is usually best decided by the trial court. A party moving for discovery sanctions based on the intentional destruction of evidence could argue that the mere fact that the evidence no longer exists supports an inference of intentional spoliation.

Defendant Hyundai Motor Americas Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence Defendant Hyundai Motor America moves for sanctions against plaintiff Bernhard G. Mueller including terminating sanctions, issue sanctions, or an adverse jury instruction. Evidentiary Objections Defendant makes 16 objections to the declaration of Tionna Carvalho. Objection Nos. 1, 2, and 7 are sustained . Objection Nos. 3-6 and 8-16 are overruled .

Estives Motion for Discovery Sanctions against Defendant Agustin Quiroz and his Counsel is DENIED. I. MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS Misuse of the discovery process may result in the imposition of a variety of sanctions. These include payment of costs, sanctions barring the introduction of certain evidence, sanctions deeming that certain issues are determined against the offending party, and sanctions terminating an action in favor of the aggrieved party.

A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence. ( R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd . (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 497.) Discussion I. Terminating, Issue, or Evidentiary Sanctions A.

Plaintiff contends Defendant engaged in intentional spoliation of evidence by failing to preserve the hour of video after the fall. Plaintiff requests terminating sanctions, the striking of Defendant’s answer, and a default prove-up. Plaintiff also seeks evidence, issue, and monetary sanctions. The Court notes Plaintiff’s brief was much too long, as more than three pages of the brief were single spaced. Plaintiff’s reply brief was also 3.5 pages too long. Defendant filed an improper sur-reply. III.

Sanctions Terminating, Issue or Evidentiary “A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” (Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223 (“Williams”) (Emphasis added.).)

The request for sanctions is denied. Likewise, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant is denied. Plaintiff was under a duty to preserve communications between herself and the County beginning in late 2022. The present Motion resulted, in part, by the breach of this duty.

Mainsheet Capital Inc 12/13/2023 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 53 court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” (R.S. Creative, Inc., supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at 497.) This is not an egregious case of intentional spoliation. Based upon the evidence presented on this motion, it is not a case of intentional spoliation at all. Thus, the requested sanctions are entirely inappropriate.

Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs motion for sanctions without prejudice. Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Courts ruling and file a proof of service of such.

One remedy for spoliation of evidence is discovery sanctions for “misuse of the discovery process.” (Id. at 12 (“Destroying evidence in response to a discovery request after litigation has commenced would surely be a misuse of discovery ... as would such destruction in anticipation of a discovery request.”).) Appropriate sanctions may include monetary sanctions, contempt sanctions, issue sanctions, evidence sanctions, or terminating sanctions. (Id.)

Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 17 held that there is no tort remedy for intentional destruction of evidence by a litigating party, and that stated that other, nontort remedies available for intentional spoliation, including particularly the evidentiary inference provided by Evidence Code section 413 and discovery sanctions under former section 2023, were sufficient to deter intentional spoliation and protect the spoliation victim. Cedars-Sinai at 11-13.

Retrospective realization of evidence that Plaintiff should have perhaps addressed will not serve as a prospective basis for summary default on liability, evidentiary and/or issue sanctions, or monetary sanctions. The court declines to make an evidentiary and legal finding of intentional destruction and severe prejudice justifying such a drastic remedy.

These include payment of costs, sanctions barring the introduction of certain evidence, sanctions deeming that certain issues are determined against the offending party, and sanctions terminating an action in favor of the aggrieved party.

As such, spoliation is considered a “misuse of the discovery process that is subject to a broad range of punishment, including monetary, issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions.” (Ibid., citing Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2023.030, subds. (a)-(d); Cedars–Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 12.) Moreover, such sanctions may be obtained even in the absence of a violation of a prior court order, in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.

As such, the sanctions motion was arguably justified. Defendant’s request for sanctions is therefore denied.

As such, the Court finds that evidentiary sanctions are warranted. The motion for terminating and issue sanctions is DENIED. The motion for evidence sanctions is GRANTED. The Court will issue jury instruction CACI 204 pertaining to the intentional spoliation of the subject vehicle device. To the extent that Plaintiffs have conducted their own forensic inspection of the subject vehicle prior to its disposal, the Court excludes any such evidence.

6) for monetary sanctions against Defendants and their attorney of record in the amount of $4,800 plus filing fees (monetary sanctions).

Appropriate Sanctions Discovery sanctions should be imposed incrementally, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination. ( Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.) Courts must consider whether some lesser form of sanction will remedy the discovery violation of spoliation of evidence. ( Victor Valley Union High School Dist. v. Superior Court (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1121, 1149.)

Monetary Sanctions The requested monetary sanctions are for attorneys’ fees and expert fees incurred in preparing the present motion. Because the Court denies the request for issue and terminating sanctions, it denies the request for monetary sanctions as well.

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Martha Morrison’s Motion for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $5,200 and for Discovery and Other Sanctions Against Defendant Roger’s Gardens Newport Beach for Intentional Spoliation of Evidence (ROA 29, filed 8/7/20) is DENIED. This case arises out of injuries suffered by Plaintiff when she allegedly slipped on an uneven floor surface at Roger’s Gardens caused by the placement of rubber mats with gaps between them.

Plaintiff also filed documents titled “Separate Statement #1 of Discovery Issues, Intentional Spoliation, and Evidentiary Misconduct in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, and Request for Sanctions” and “Separate Statement #2 of Discovery Issues, Intentional Spoliation, and Evidentiary Misconduct in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents and Request for Sanctions” (collectively referred to

Plaintiff appears to seek terminating sanctions and/or “severe issue sanctions” as an alternative to his motion for reconsideration. As with Plaintiff’s previous motion for sanctions, Plaintiff fails to include a notice of motion which details the sanctions Plaintiff seeks in violation of Code Civ.

Monetary sanctions are DENIED. Based on the evidence presented, the Court does not find that Southland is engaged in the intentional spoliation of evidence, or is improperly withholding evidence.

“While there is no tort cause of action for the intentional destruction of evidence after litigation has commenced, it is a misuse of the discovery process that is subject to a broad range of punishment, including monetary, issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions. A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.” (Williams v.

Plaintiff moves for (1) terminating sanctions, or in the alternative; (2) issue or evidentiary sanctions, or in the alternative; (3) an order compelling production of all CCTV video surveillance footage of the incident, or in the alternative; (4) an order that jury instructions concerning intentional destruction of evidence be given at trial. Defendant opposes the motion. Both parties request monetary sanctions.

.: BC653918 MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND/OR EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR SPOLIATION OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE MOVING PARTY : Plaintiff Helene G. Sakellis RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center REQUESTED RELIEF: 1. An order issuing terminating sanctions against Defendant or, alternatively, a harsh adverse inference or evidentiary sanctions. TENTATIVE RULING: 1.

Defendant argues that this ambiguity cannot be the basis for a finding of intentional spoliation of evidence. “While there is no tort cause of action for the intentional destruction of evidence after litigation has commenced, it is a misuse of the discovery process that is subject to a broad range of punishment, including monetary, issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions.” (Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223.)

The court imposes $500 in sanctions against both Plaintiff and counsel. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (b).) Sanctions payable within 30 days of this order. County to provide notice.

DISCUSSION Plaintiffs request that the court compel the imposition of spoliation sanctions including evidentiary and monetary sanctions against defendant Lennox School District.

Motion for Sanctions On January 22, 2024, Judge Olivia Rosales issued an order denying Plaintiffs Motion for Terminating Sanctions, but granting the Motion for Monetary Sanctions and allowing the reopening of the discovery period. Plaintiff now makes a Renewed Motion for Terminating and/or Issue Sanctions, and Monetary Sanctions for Defendants abusive litigation practices and misuse of the discovery process, and moves once again to continue trial and reopen discovery.

They include monetary sanctions, contempt sanctions, issue sanctions ordering that designated facts be taken as established or precluding the offending party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, evidence sanctions prohibiting the offending party from introducing designated materials into evidence, and terminating sanctions that include striking part or all of the pleadings, dismissing part or all of the action, or granting a default judgment against the offending party.”

On October 2, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion for terminating sanctions (the Motion). The Motion requests that the Court issue terminating, issue, evidence, and/or monetary sanctions against Defendants due their repeated misuse of the discovery process and failure to preserve evidence.

Case Number: 19STCV18096 Hearing Date: June 23, 2022 Dept: 72 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE Date: 6/21/22 (9:30 AM) Case: Carolina Barlow v. Jacob Espinosa et al. (19STCV18096) TENTATIVE RULING : Plaintiff Carolina Barlows Motion for Sanctions against Defendant Music Express Coach, Inc. for Spoliation of Evidence is GRANTED. Defendant Music Express Coach, Inc.s evidentiary sanctions are OVERRULED.

While there is no tort cause of action for the intentional destruction of evidence after litigation has commenced, it is a misuse of the discovery process that is subject to a broad range of punishment, including monetary, issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions. A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence. ( Williams v.

[Citation] While there is no tort cause of action for the intentional destruction of evidence after litigation has commenced, it is a misuse of the discovery process that is subject to a broad range of punishment, including monetary, issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions. [Citation] A terminating sanction is appropriate in the first instance without a violation of prior court orders in egregious cases of intentional spoliation of evidence.

The Court of Appeal has stated: A party moving for discovery sanctions based on the intentional destruction of evidence could argue that the mere fact that the evidence no longer exists supports an inference of intentional spoliation.

These circumstances weigh against an award of sanctions.

In sum, even if statutory discovery sanctions are unavailable, the Court finds Defendant’s conduct to be intentional and egregious such that under the unique circumstances of this case, evidentiary sanctions are necessary to ensure a fair trial. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, the Court finds the imposition of evidence sanctions against Defendant for misuse of the discovery process to be just and proper. Plaintiff’s Motion for sanctions is GRANTED.

Defendants’ Request for Sanctions Defendants seek sanctions per CCP §127(h) in connection with their opposition to the motion. §127(h) does not exist, and the request for sanctions is denied.

In Cedars-Sinai, the Supreme Court held that a tort action may not be brought against a party for intentional spoliation of evidence where the spoliation is discovered before trial, in part because non-tort remedies are available, including discovery sanctions (CCP § 2023.030) and jury instructions (Evid. Code § 413).

Ct. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 464 [regarding sanctions for intentional spoliation of evidence]; Code of Civ. Proc. § 425.13(a) [regarding claims for punitive damages].) The request for sanctions on these grounds is likewise denied. The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC 3.1312 or other notice is required.

Intentional spoliation of evidence, including the destruction of a cell phone containing relevant communications; and 3. Continual non-compliance with discovery obligations and court orders despite monetary sanctions. In the alternative, Defendants request that the Court vacate the trial date, impose evidentiary sanctions to exclude the undisclosed evidence, and award monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs in the amount of $36,200.00[.]

PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC , the Court ruled that Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010 and 2023.030 list the available discovery sanctions but do not independently authorize a court to impose specific sanctions. ( PriceewaterhouseCoopers (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 503-504.) Thus, a courts authority to impose the sanctions specified in sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 must arise from a statute governing a particular method of discovery.

These include payment of costs, sanctions barring the introduction of certain evidence, sanctions deeming that certain issues are determined against the offending party, and sanctions terminating an action in favor of the aggrieved party.

.: BC664336 Hearing Date: April 3, 2019 [TENTATIVE] order RE: PLAINTIFFs’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Plaintiffs Evan Weissman (“Evan”) and Kareena Bioski-Weissman (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege Evan suffered serious injuries when a gate fell on him during an event at Defendant Milk Studios Los Angeles, LLC (“Defendant”). Plaintiffs seek issue sanctions, evidentiary sanctions, or an evidentiary presumption against Defendant based on Defendant’s destruction of the gate that fell on Evan.

However, Defendant filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Request for Monetary Sanctions on March 16, 2020, withdrawing its request for monetary sanctions. LEGAL STANDARD “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.

Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, our Supreme Court held that there is no tort remedy for the intentional spoliation of evidence by a party to the cause of action&. ( Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 17.) Instead, the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center court recognized the existence of non-tort remedies such as sanctions and criminal penalties. ( Id.

However, if plaintiffs fail to appear for their next depositions, the court will entertain a motion for additional sanctions, including monetary, evidence, issue, or terminating sanctions, against them.

These include payment of costs, sanctions barring the introduction of certain evidence, sanctions deeming that certain issues are determined against the offending party, and sanctions terminating an action in favor of the aggrieved party.

(1) MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE by defendants/cross-complainants Servpro Industries, Inc. and Immediate Flood Rescue Inc. dba Servpro of Santee/Lakeside is DENIED. Objections overruled. A party moving for discovery sanctions based on the spoliation of evidence must make an initial prima facie showing that the responding party in fact destroyed evidence that had a substantial probability of damaging the moving party's ability to establish an essential element of his claim or defense.

Instead, "[this] wholesome maxim of jurisprudence ... can obviously have no application to any but legal wrongs or those wrongs for which the law authorizes or sanctions redress." (Finch v. Western Nat. Bank (1914) 24 Cal.App. 331, 338 [141 P. 261], cited in County of San Luis Obispo, at p. 865.) "A tort ... involves a violation of a legal duty, imposed by statute, contract, or otherwise, owed by the defendant to the person injured.

Therefore, the court GRANTS the motion IN PART as to evidentiary sanctions and DENIES the motion IN PART as to issue sanctions. CONCLUSION For these reasons, the motion for issue and evidentiary sanctions for spoliation of evidence is GRANTED IN PART as to evidentiary sanctions and DENIED IN PART as to issue sanctions.

CONCLUSION Plaintiffs motion for sanctions is DENIED.

CONCLUSION Defendants motion for sanctions is DENIED.

In these circumstances, the court finds it appropriate to impose evidentiary sanctions.

The Court will invite argument at the hearing as to whether there is any evidence or indication of intentional spoliation of the Quickbooks report. C. Sanctions Defendants assert that Plaintiff should be sanctioned for failing to produce the QuickBooks files in the amount of $2,000 because it argues that it is undisputed that the documents are in Zoukis possession, custody, and control. In opposition, Plaintiff notes that the bases for this belief is from Mr.

Proc. § 2023.030, sanctions for the misuse of the discovery process, which encompasses spoilation of evidence, include monetary, issue, evidence, and terminating sanctions. (Cal. Code Civ.

[2] The Court notes Plaintiffs Motion requests evidence, issue, and instructional sanctions but, substantively, Plaintiff only requests issue sanctions and a separate adverse inference jury instruction. ( See Motion, pp. 2-3, 19.) Plaintiff may raise the issue of jury instructions at trial.

As such, sanctions are warranted. However, because sanctions should not exceed that which is necessary to remedy the discovery abuse, the broad sanctions, including terminating sanctions, requested by Defendants are excessive. Defendants alternatively seek issue sanctions, which may be imposed to designate that facts are taken as established or prohibit the party subject to the sanctions from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.

As such, sanctions are warranted. However, because sanctions should not exceed that which is necessary to remedy the discovery abuse, the broad sanctions, including terminating sanctions, requested by Defendants are excessive. Defendants alternatively seek issue sanctions, which may be imposed to designate that facts are taken as established or prohibit the party subject to the sanctions from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.

As such, sanctions are warranted. However, because sanctions should not exceed that which is necessary to remedy the discovery abuse, the broad sanctions, including terminating sanctions, requested by Defendants are excessive. Defendants alternatively seek issue sanctions, which may be imposed to designate that facts are taken as established or prohibit the party subject to the sanctions from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions, or In the Alternative, Evidentiary and Issue Sanctions is DENIED.