Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV29980, Date: 2022-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV29980    Hearing Date: October 18, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff Esther Naghi-Eghbal (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Century Hill Association (“Defendant”) for damages relating to Plaintiff’s alleged slip and fall on Defendant’s property.

Defendant, at this time, moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint because of her failure to comply with the Court’s August 18, 2022 order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified further responses to Defendant’s form interrogatories, set one, and request for production of documents, set one.  Defendant further requests monetary sanctions of $1,760.00 against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel.  Alternatively, Defendant requests evidentiary or issue sanctions precluding Plaintiff from introducing evidence in support of her claims.  The motion is 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, Defendant submits evidence showing that Plaintiff has failed repeatedly to provide timely and complete discovery responses in this case.  Further, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s August 18, 2022 order.  Plaintiff has not served the compelled responses, which Defendant avers impedes its ability to defend and move this case forward.  A brief review of the prior motions reveals that the discovery at issue goes to the crux of Plaintiff’s claim, including information concerning witnesses to the incident, inspections of the scene of the incident, and all documents that support Plaintiff’s contentions or concern the incident.  Accordingly, an issue or evidentiary sanction would be tantamount to a terminating sanction.  Furthermore, Plaintiff does not oppose this motion, and no reasons are given for why Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order.   

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

Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions in connection with this motion pursuant to CCP § 2023.010, et seq.  Monetary sanctions are imposed pursuant to CCP § 2023.030.  Further, the imposition of terminating sanctions does not make the imposition of monetary sanctions unjust.  (See Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. Hennings (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 57, 76-78.)

Here, Defendant is awarded two hours for preparing the motion and one hour for appearing hearing at the reasonable rate of $200 per hour, for a total of $600 in attorney fees.  Further, Defendant is awarded the motion filing fees of $60 as costs.  

Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiff.  Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $660.00, 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 18^th day of October 2022