Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV00327, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV00327    Hearing Date: September 29, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiffs Edgar Larios (“Larios”) and Shahnazi Faezeh (“Faezeh” or “Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Christian Mendez and Armando Reyes (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

At this time, Defendants move for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff Faezeh dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint because of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s July 28, 2022 order compelling Plaintiff to serve further responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents (“RPDs”), all set one, within 20 days.  Alternatively, Defendants request monetary sanctions if terminating sanctions are not imposed.  Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendants filed a reply. 

2. Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030 gives the court the discretion to impose sanctions against anyone engaging in a misuse of the discovery process.  A court may impose terminating sanctions by striking pleadings of the party engaged in misuse of discovery or entering default judgment.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(d).)  A violation of a discovery order is sufficient for the imposition of terminating sanctions.  (Collison & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1620.)  Terminating sanctions are appropriate when a party persists in disobeying the court's orders.  (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 795-796.) 

A terminating sanction is a "drastic measure which should be employed with caution."  (Deyo, 84 Cal.App.3d at 793.)  "A decision to order terminating sanctions 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."  (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280.)  While the court has discretion to impose terminating sanctions, these sanctions "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."  (Deyo, 84 Cal.App.3d at 793.)  "[A] court is empowered to apply the ultimate sanction against a litigant who persists in the outright refusal to comply with his discovery obligations."  (Ibid.)  Discovery sanctions are not to be imposed for punishment, but instead are used to encourage fair disclosure of discovery to prevent unfairness resulting for the lack of information.  (See Midwife v. Bernal (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 57, 64 [superseded on other grounds as stated in Kohan v. Cohan (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 967, 971].)

In this case, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs on July 28, 2022, and ordered Plaintiff Faezeh to serve further responses to the discovery requests within 20 days.  Defendants contend that Plaintiff is disregarding the order and has not served further responses.   

            In opposition, Plaintiff Faezeh asserts through counsel that Plaintiff’s counsel has lost contact with Plaintiff.  Plaintiff contends that although Plaintiff has not served responses to the discovery, this is not a repeated pattern of misuse of the discovery process.  Larios contends he has complied with his discovery obligations, and that it is Defendant that has been uncooperative. 

            Defendant, in reply, asserts that Plaintiff has still not served the subject discovery responses, and that Plaintiff does not indicate in the opposition that Plaintiff intends to serve responses.  Defendants assert that this action is now almost three years old and requiring Defendants to continue to defend this action with Plaintiff’s total lack of cooperation would be unduly prejudicial. 

Defendants’ evidence shows, and Plaintiff Faezeh does not dispute that, Plaintiff failed to comply with the July 28, 2022 order compelling Plaintiff to serve further responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs, all set one, within 20 days.  Notably, as Defendants assert, Plaintiff does not state that Plaintiff intends to serve responses to the subject discovery.  Moreover, a brief review of the prior motion reveals that the discovery at issue goes to the crux of Plaintiff’s claim, and therefore an issue or evidentiary sanction would be tantamount to a terminating sanction.  (Mot. to Compel Further filed March 24, 2022.)  Plaintiff’s argument that failing to comply with the Court’s order and serve responses does not constitute a misuse of the discovery process is unavailing, as these failures clearly constitute a misuse of the discovery process.  (CCP § 2023.010(d), (g).) 

Based on the foregoing, terminating sanctions are imposed at this time.  Plaintiff Shahnazi Faezeh’s complaint against Defendants is hereby dismissed.  Monetary sanctions, which Defendants request only in the alternative, are thus unwarranted. 

Defendants are ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 29^th day of September 2022