Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV09459, Date: 2022-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV09459    Hearing Date: August 3, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff Linda Cota (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Snow Creek Village West Partners (“Snow Creek”), et al for damages arising from a slip and fall incident.  On February 18, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint naming TWS Facility Services, Inc. (“TWS”) as Doe 2. 

Defendant Snow Creek now moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff dismissing her complaint because of Plaintiff’s misuse of the discovery process by failing to serve responses to Snow Creek’s written discovery and failing to comply with the court’s June 8, 2022 Order compelling Plaintiff to respond to Snow Creek’s form interrogatories. 

TWS filed a joinder to Snow Creek’s motion requesting the action be dismissed against it based on Plaintiff’s failure to respond to discovery requests, and Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s April 26, 2022 and June 8, 2022 Orders. 

The motion and joinder are unopposed.

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].)

Here, Snow Creek submits evidence showing Plaintiff has failed to provide responses to Snow Creek’s form interrogatories, set two, and that Plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s June 8, 2022 Order compelling response to the form interrogatories within ten days.  A brief review of the prior motion reveals that the discovery at issue goes to the crux of Plaintiff’s claim against Snow Creek, and therefore an issue or evidentiary sanction would be tantamount to a terminating sanction.  Furthermore, Plaintiff does not oppose this motion, and thus, appears to have abandoned the case as to Snow Creek. 

Based on the foregoing, terminating sanctions are imposed at this time.  Plaintiff’s action against Snow Creek is hereby dismissed.

As to TWS’ joinder to the motion, while TWS contends that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the court’s April 26, 2022 and June 8, 2022 Orders, these orders pertained to discovery served by Crown Building Maintenance dba Able Building Maintenance and Snow Creek, respectively.  Moreover, TWS does not submit any evidence showing that Plaintiff has failed to comply with any discovery requests propounded by TWS, or that Plaintiff has failed to comply with any prior court orders pertaining to TWS’s discovery.  Therefore, TWS’ joinder is denied to the extent TWS seeks an order dismissing it from the action. 

Defendant Snow Creek is 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 3^rd day of August 2022