Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 23STCV17139, Date: 2025-05-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV17139    Hearing Date: May 21, 2025    Dept: 76

            Plaintiff alleges that, in accordance with a contract, Defendants caused Plaintiff to be unlicensed for several months while being subject to an investigation for submitting an application purportedly signed by a deceased person. This unlicensed status caused Plaintiff to lose several jobs it would otherwise have been able to do at a profit.

Defendants Michelle Wizman and RMO Construction Agency, Inc. move for terminating, issue and/or evidentiary sanctions against Plaintiff.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Michelle Wizman and RMO Construction Agency, Inc.’s motion for terminating, issue and/or evidentiary sanctions against Plaintiff and request for sanctions is DENIED without prejudice to bringing a properly-noticed motion for issue and/or evidentiary sanctions.

ANALYSIS

Motion For Terminating Sanctions

Discussion          

Defendants Michelle Wizman and RMO Construction Agency, Inc. move for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff never responded to written discovery, aside from requests for admission, and the Court granted Defendant Michelle Wizman’s motion for an order compelling responses to form and special interrogatories and requests for production of documents. (See September 5, 2024 minute order.) 

The September 5, 2024 minute order only pertained to Defendant Michelle Wizman. Further, Plaintiff served responses to requests for admission, demonstrating at least minimal participation in discovery.

The court has the authority to impose sanctions against a party that engages in the misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.) This includes failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery and disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010 (d) and (g).)  A party engaging in such conduct may be subject to monetary, issue and/or evidentiary, and terminating sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.030(a), (b) (c) and (d).)          

            Where a party fails to obey an order compelling responses, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction . . . In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction. . . .”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c); § 2031.300(c).) Indeed, the court may impose terminating sanctions after a party’s failure to comply with one court order to produce discovery if it is an “attempt[ ] to tailor the sanction to the harm caused by the withheld discovery.” (Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1618-19.)

"[T]he question before this court is not whether the trial court should have imposed a lesser sanction; rather, the question is whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the sanction it chose. [Citation.] Moreover, imposition of a lesser sanction would have permitted [defendants] to benefit from their stalling tactics. [Citation.] The trial court did not abuse its discretion by tailoring the sanction to the particular abuse. [Citation.]" ( Id. at pp. 36-37.)

(Collisson, supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at 1620.)

            In deciding whether to impose a terminating sanction, the trial court is to consider the totality of the circumstances: “conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.” (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.)

            Because Plaintiff only failed to comply with an order compelling responses served by Defendant Wizman, there is no basis to dismiss the Complaint as to Defendant RMO Construction Agency, Inc.

            Further, the Court deems terminating sanctions in favor of Defendant Wizman to be unduly harsh at this stage, given that Plaintiff failed to comply with only one court order. In this regard, the Court is inclined to impose issue and/or evidentiary sanctions against Plaintiff. However, Defendant Wizman must specify in the notice the exact terms of the issue and/or evidentiary sanctions to be imposed, not the vague concepts set forth at Page 9:3 – 11 of the motion. In this regard, the motion is DENIED, without prejudice to bringing a motion for issue and/or evidentiary sanctions which gives fair notice of the terms of the sanctions to be imposed.

            Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff only is DENIED, as the notice of motion, Page 2, did not specify the amount of monetary sanctions. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 2023.040.)