Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV14305, Date: 2022-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV14305    Hearing Date: August 31, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background Facts

Plaintiff Laura Alvarado-Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Reyna Esther Rodas Reyes De Andra, erroneously named Reyna Esther Rodas Reyes De Andrade (“Defendant”) for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident. 

At this time, Defendant moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff dismissing her complaint based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s May 16, 2022 Order compelling Plaintiff to serve responses form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents (“RPDs”).  Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration in opposition.  No reply has been received. 

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, the Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel responses to discovery on May 16, 2022, and ordered Plaintiff to provide responses to Defendant’s form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs within ten days and pay monetary sanctions to Defendant.   Defendant asserts that as of the filing of this motion, Plaintiff failed to provide responses to the subject discovery or to pay the monetary sanctions ordered.  Defendant seeks terminating sanctions dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint as a result.   

Plaintiff’s counsel, in opposition, attests that although Plaintiff was unable to obtain the necessary discovery information within the ordered ten-day period, Plaintiff served complete and verified responses to the discovery requests on July 1, 2022.  While Plaintiff does not attach copies of the discovery responses to Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration, given Plaintiff’s counsel representation that responses have now been served, and because Defendant does not file a reply disputing this, the Court finds terminating sanctions unduly harsh and unwarranted at this time. 

The request for terminating sanctions is denied. 

However, because Plaintiff did not serve responses until after the instant motion was filed, the Court finds monetary sanctions for fees and costs Defendant incurred in filing this motion warranted.  (CCP § 2023.030.)  The Court finds the $400 in sanctions requested by Defendant to be reasonable and wholly supported by defense counsel’s declaration.  (Mot. Kane Decl. ¶ 4.)  Monetary sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney of record, jointly and severally; they are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $400.00 within twenty days. 

Defendant 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 31^st day of August 2022