Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case 20STCV06493 2022-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV06493, Date: 2022-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV06493 Hearing Date: October 13, 2022 Dept: 28

Defendant Jose Noble’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions

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

BACKGROUND

On February 18, 2020, Plaintiff Javier Aguilar (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Jose Noble (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle negligence.

On November 8, 2021, Defendant filed an answer.

On September 16, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions to be heard on October 13, 2022.

The trial date currently set for January 18, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant requests the Court issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiff.

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 served Plaintiff with discovery on November 8, 2021; Plaintiff did not serve timely responses. On March 3, 2022, Defendant filed motions to compel discovery, which the Court granted on April 14, 2022. Plaintiff was ordered to serve code-compliant discovery responses on May 14, 2022. Plaintiff has yet to serve code-compliant responses.

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

CONCLUSION

Defendant Jose Noble’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030(d)(3).

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.