Opinion ID: 2638442
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: DeNardo's failure to comply with Judge Shortell's discovery order was willful.

Text: DeNardo claims that the superior court's order deleting six categories of discovery from ABC's original motion to compel shows that his failure to comply with the court's order was not willful. Moreover, he argues that, if he had been allowed to answer ABC's motion to dismiss with the discovery material he sought from ABC, it would show that ABC had committed many misrepresentations. ABC responds that DeNardo willfully disobeyed the court's order. Willfulness in this context is defined as a conscious intent to impede discovery, and not mere delay, inability or good faith resistance. [11] Although the court did limit the amount of discovery that ABC had originally requested, this order in itself does nothing to show that the remaining discovery requests that were allowed were unwarranted, or that DeNardo's actions in failing to comply with the court's order were in good faith. If anything, the limiting order shows the superior court's effort to ensure that DeNardo was not being harassed through the discovery process, not that the remaining discovery was irrelevant. DeNardo also argues that if the court had granted his motion to compel he could have obeyed the court's order. However, we rejected this argument in Hikita v. Nichiro Gyogyo Kaisha, Ltd. [12] In Hikita we held that a discovery request cannot be satisfied by a party claiming it is `attempting to ascertain the answers,' and putting off its obligation to a later date. [13] And, as in Hughes v. Bobich, [14] DeNardo's argument here misallocates the applicable burden of proof on the issue of willfulness. Once noncompliance has been demonstrated, the noncomplying party bears the burden of proving that the failure to comply was not willful. [15] DeNardo fails to meet this burden. Rather than showing that his failure to comply was not willfulfor example, by showing that the requested material was lostDeNardo repeatedly claimed that ABC had no right to the answers or documents. But the superior court had previously decided that ABC had precisely that right (and DeNardo has not appealed that finding). [16] DeNardo also claims that his actions were not willful because the information could be found in the public record or because ABC was already in possession of the relevant information. However, we do not require a complying party to devise creative ways to obtain information that the noncomplying party controls and refuses to produce. [17] In Hughes, we found that [b]ecause the evidence established a substantial and continuing violation ... and because the Hughes failed to meet their burden of disproving willfulness, the court could properly find that the Hughes' noncompliance was willful. [18] Similarly here, the evidence establishes a continuing violation of the court's order. While the violation may not be as egregious as violations in other cases, [19] DeNardo distinguishes himself by showing no intention of ever complying with the court's orders. In addition, ABC is correct that it is illogical for DeNardo to argue that he needs discovery from ABC in order to complete a discovery order compelling information from him. Additional discovery from ABC would, in no way, make DeNardo's driver's license or his prior work history easier for him to produce and DeNardo does not explain in his briefing why such discovery would help. Although he does not argue it, we also note that DeNardo's pro se status does not provide an excuse for his noncompliance with the court's order. [20] In her order, Judge Joannides specifically found DeNardo to be familiar with the litigation process based on other previous and pending actions with which he was involved. And, as we found in Coffland v. Coffland, [21] pro se litigants must make some attempt to comply with the court's procedure before receiving the benefit of the court's leniency. [22] DeNardo has made no effort to comply and therefore is not entitled to any special allowances based on his pro se status. The burden was on DeNardo to show his conduct in not answering ABC's discovery was not willful, but instead was good faith resistance. Because DeNardo did not meet this burden, we find his conduct to evidence a willful intent to impede discovery.