Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case 19SMCV01926 2023-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19SMCV01926, Date: 2023-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19SMCV01926 Hearing Date: March 27, 2023 Dept: 207

Background

Plaintiff Ahnna McDevitt (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendant Anni Chakmakchian (“Defendant”) and others concerning claims for defective workmanship in connection with a remodeling project at a property owned by Plaintiff. Plaintiff previously propounded written discovery on Defendant in the form of Requests for Admission, Requests for Production of Documents, and Form Interrogatories. When Defendant did not respond to this discovery, Plaintiff brought motions to compel and to deem her Requests for Admission admitted. Plaintiff’s motions were unopposed and were granted by the Court. Plaintiff now brings a motion for terminating and monetary sanctions against Defendant arguing Defendant has failed to comply with the Court’s order granting Plaintiff’s prior motions. Plaintiff’s motion for terminating and monetary sanctions is unopposed.

Legal Standard

A party must respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service. (C.C.P. § 2030.260(a); C.C.P. § 2031.260(a).) If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production of documents are directed does not provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses to the discovery. (C.C.P. § 2030.290(b); C.C.P. § 2031.300(c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one based on privilege or work-product protection. (C.C.P. § 2030.290(a); C.C.P. § 2031.300(a).)

If a party fails to comply with a court order compelling a response to interrogatories or a request for production, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions. (C.C.P. §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).) Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 provides that, “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method . . ., the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose . . . [monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating] sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process . . .” Section 2023.010 provides that “[m]issues of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: . . . (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. . . (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery . . .”

“The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse ‘after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] 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.’” (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390 (quoting Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246).) “Generally, ‘[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.’” (Los Defensores, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390 (citation omitted).)

“Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders.” (Ibid. (citing Lang, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1244-1246); see, e.g., Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622 (terminating sanctions imposed after defendants failed to comply with one court order to produce discovery); Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 491 (disapproved on other grounds in Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 478, n. 4) (terminating sanctions imposed against plaintiff for failing to comply with a discovery order and for violating various discovery statutes).)

Analysis

On June 30, 2020, Plaintiff served Defendant with written discovery in the form of Requests for Admission, Set One; Form Interrogatories, Set One; and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. Defendant never provided responses or objections to this written discovery and Plaintiff brought motions to compel responses to the Requests for Production and Form Interrogatories and a separate motion to deem the Requests for Admission admitted. Defendant did not oppose or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s motions, and on January 19, 2023, the Court entered an order granting all three of these discovery motions. The Court’s January 19 minute order directed Defendant to provide responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and document demands within 20 days and issued a monetary sanction against Defendant in the amount of $1,725 to be paid within the same 20 day period.

To date, Defendant failed to provide responses to Plaintiff’s written discovery or to pay the monetary sanction issued by the Court. Plaintiff now moves for terminating sanctions against Defendant in the form of striking Defendant’s Answer and entering default against her.

Plaintiff’s attempts to obtain responses from Defendant are well documented in Plaintiff’s prior motion to compel, and included several attempts to resolve the issue directly with Defendant without the Court’s intervention, as well as through an informal discovery conference with the Court itself. (Hom Decl. at ¶¶2-4.) Defendant’s failure to provide any responses whatsoever to this discovery has prejudiced Plaintiff’s ability to prepare for trial in this action and improperly subjects Plaintiff to trial by surprise without any notice of the claims, defenses, or evidence Defendant intends to put on.

The Court also notes Defendant has failed to contest or in any way respond to Plaintiff’s prior motions to compel or the instant motion for terminating sanctions. Defendant has thus provided the Court with no basis to find that Defendant has acted with substantial justification in failing to respond to discovery or comply with the Court’s January 19, 2023, order. The Court thus finds Defendant has made a willful choice to completely disregard her discovery obligations in this action. While terminating sanctions are a drastic remedy which should be only used sparingly, the Court finds they are justified here given Defendant has made no effort to provide any responses to written discovery and has flatly ignored this Court’s prior order without any attempt made to comply. On such facts, the Court any lesser sanction would be insufficient to remedy the prejudice suffered by Plaintiff or motivate Defendant to provide responses to Plaintiff’s written discovery. That Defendant does not oppose this motion further indicates she has conceded terminating sanctions are proper and has no objection to the Court’s striking of her Answer.

The Court thus GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions against Defendant. Plaintiff also requests a monetary sanction in the amount of $760 to cover the fees incurred in bringing this motion based on Defendant’s misuse of the discovery process. Such monetary sanctions are authorized by Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a) and are GRANTED.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED and Defendant’s Answer is deemed stricken. Plaintiff is awarded $760 in monetary sanctions against Defendant to be paid to counsel for Plaintiff within 20 days of the date of this order.