Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 21STCV42344, Date: 2023-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42344    Hearing Date: April 3, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Matthew Pratchard’s Company’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions

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

BACKGROUND

On November 17, 2021, Plaintiff Francisco Najarro (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Matthew Pratchard (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle negligence.

On May 13, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.

On February 22, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions to be heard on April 3, 2023.

The trial date currently set for May 17, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant requests the Court issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiff, or, in the alternative issue and evidentiary sanctions. Defendant also requests monetary sanctions totaling $460.00.

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

Defendant properly served Plaintiff with multiple pieces of discovery but never received Plaintiff’s responses. Defendant filed motions to compel discovery, with the Court granted on December 6, 2022. Plaintiff has yet to provide the Court mandated discovery responses, despite them being due on December 26, 2022.

The Court finds grounds for terminating sanctions. Plaintiff has failed to abide by the Court’s orders and provide discovery. There is no indication that less severe sanction would produce compliance with discovery rules. The Court grants the motion.

Defendant also requests monetary sanctions totaling $460.00; the Court finds the request reasonable and grants it in full.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Matthew Pratchard’s Company’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed, with prejudice. Plaintiff is ordered to pay Defendant $460.00 in sanctions, within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.