Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 19STCV17414, Date: 2023-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV17414    Hearing Date: April 18, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendants Joey Richard Alvarado and Trinity Worldwide Reprographics, Inc.’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On May 20, 2019, Plaintiff Rosa Ayala (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Joey Richard Alvarado (“Alvarado”), Trinity Worldwide Reprographics, Inc. (“TWR”) and Trinity Graphics, Inc. (“TG”) for motor vehicle negligence.

On August 18, 2021, Alvarado filed an answer. On November 12, 2021, the Court dismissed TWR, without prejudice. Dismissal was later vacated.

On March 23, 2023, Alvarado and TWR (“Moving Defendants”) filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions to be heard on April 18, 2023. On April 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a late opposition.

The trial date currently set for October 18, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Moving Defendants request the Court issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiff, and to impose monetary sanctions totaling $528.00 on Plaintiff.

Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motion as moot.

LEGAL STANDARD

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].)

DISCUSSION

On June 8, 2022, Moving Defendants propounded discovery on Plaintiff; Plaintiff did not serve timely discovery responses. Moving Defendants brought forward motions to compel regarding this discovery, which the Court granted on January 23, 2023. Plaintiff was ordered to serve discovery responses within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

Moving Defendants served additional discovery on October 7, 2022. Plaintiff did not provide timely responses to this discovery, resulting in Moving Defendants filing motions to compel. Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Moving Defendants’ counsel and provided incomplete responses. Plaintiff’s counsel then promised to provide complete responses to all discovery by March 15, 2023. Moving Defendants took the motions off calendar in good faith following this assurance.

Plaintiff submitted a late opposition that states that Plaintiff served verified responses to outstanding discovery on April 13, 2023. Plaintiff did not provide copies of the discovery, verifications or proof of service for the Court to review, in order to ensure it actually consisted of code-compliant discovery. The Court continues the hearing on the motion to both allow Plaintiff time to present the required evidence, and to give Moving Defendants time to file a timely reply. Plaintiff is ordered to submit supplementary papers with the required proof of compliance in order for the Court to rule accordingly.

CONCLUSION

Defendants Joey Richard Alvarado and Trinity Worldwide Reprographics, Inc.’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is CONTINUED to June 23, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. in Department 28 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

Plaintiff is ordered to file supplemental papers with the required proof and evidence by June 14, 2023.

Moving Defendants may file a reply brief by June 19, 2023.

Moving Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.