Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 20STCV37302, Date: 2023-02-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV37302 Hearing Date: February 22, 2023 Dept: 52
Defendant
Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s Motion for Terminating
Sanctions
Defendant
Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club moves for terminating sanctions
against plaintiffs Bill Starkov and Jessica Starkov.
Grounds
for Sanctions
After
a court issues an order compelling responses to interrogatories or requests for
production, “[i]f a party then fails to obey” the order, “the court may make
those orders that are just, including” imposing monetary, issue, evidence, or
terminating sanctions. (CCP § 2030.290(c)
[interrogatories]; § 2031.300(c) [requests for production].)
Plaintiffs have now disobeyed multiple court orders
compelling discovery. On
September 30, 2022, the court granted defendant’s motions to compel discovery
and ordered plaintiffs Bill Starkov and Jessica Starkov to serve verified
responses without objections to form interrogatories and requests for
production within 20 days. The court
also ordered plaintiff’s counsel Steve White to pay $390 in sanctions for each
of the four motions, totaling $1,560.
Plaintiffs
disobeyed those orders. Defense counsel
Ha Eun Cho states, “To date, plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel have not
provided any responses, nor any sanctions payment.” (Cho Decl., ¶ 12.)
In
November 2022, defendant filed a motion to enforce the prior orders and to seek
additional monetary sanctions. The court
granted that motion on January 9, 2023.
The court ordered plaintiffs Bill Starkov and Jessica Starkov each to
serve verified responses without objections to form interrogatories and
requests for production no later than January 23. They still have not done so. (Cho Decl., ¶ 12.)
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.) “[A] terminating
sanction should generally not be imposed until the court has attempted less
severe alternatives and found them to be unsuccessful and/or the record clearly
shows lesser sanctions would be ineffective.”
(Ibid.) Appropriate sanctions are those “such as are
suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the
objects of the discovery he seeks, but [not] which are designed not to
accomplish the objects of discovery but to impose punishment.” (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991)
231 Cal.App.3d 481, 488.)
Sanctions
short of termination have been ineffective to curb plaintiffs’ discovery
abuses. Defendants served these
discovery requests in December 2021.
(Cho Decl., ¶ 3.) Over a year
later, plaintiffs still have not responded.
Monetary sanctions did not result in any progress. Plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel also have
not paid the monetary sanctions. Plaintiffs’
refusal to respond to discovery and willful disobedience of court orders has
substantially prejudiced defendant’s ability to defend itself. One who chooses to file a lawsuit must accept
the obligations to participate in discovery and obey court orders. Plaintiffs have flouted those obligations.
Evidence
or issue sanctions would not suffice.
Plaintiffs have disobeyed orders compelling responses to the initial
step of written discovery, thus derailing the discovery process at the
beginning. The only adequate evidence or
issue sanctions would be so broad as to establish facts fatal to plaintiffs’
claims or prohibit them from supporting any of their claims. Such sanctions would have the same effect as
termination.
Defendant
has been completely unable to accomplish the objects of discovery. “The
purpose of discovery is to make trial ‘ “less a game of blindman’s bluff and
more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest
practicable extent.” ’ ” (Reales
Investment, LLC v. Johnson (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 463, 473.) “ ‘An important aspect of legitimate
discovery from a defendant’s point of view is the ascertainment, in advance of
trial, of the specific components of plaintiff’s case so that appropriate
preparations can be made to meet them.
It is impossible to discover this other than from the plaintiff.’
” (Id. at pp. 473-474.)
Without
any discovery, defendant cannot prepare for trial—which is set for March 29,
only five weeks from this hearing. Absent
terminating sanctions, plaintiffs’ conduct would result in running out the
clock and subjecting defendant to trial by surprise. Under these circumstances, the court finds
terminating sanctions are appropriate.
Disposition
Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of
the Automobile Club’s motion for terminating sanctions is granted.
Under
Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030(d)(3), the court hereby dismisses this
action with prejudice.