Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV10749, Date: 2022-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV10749    Hearing Date: December 20, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendant Manuel Perez’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions

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

BACKGROUND

On March 16, 2020, Plaintiffs Edward Villa (“Villa”) and Melissa Calito (“Calito”) filed this action against Defendant Manuel Perez (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle negligence.

On November 29, 2021, Defendant filed an answer.

On October 20, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions to be heard on November 29, 2022. The Court continued the hearing on the motion to December 20, 2022.

The trial date currently set for December 28, 2022.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant requests the Court issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiffs.

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

The Court previously continued the hearing on this motion to ensure that Plaintiffs were on notice as to the motion. Defendant properly served Plaintiffs, who failed to file any opposition. Therefore, the Court grants the motion, as discussed below.

Defendant served Plaintiffs with discovery; Plaintiffs failed to provide discovery responses. Defendant filed motions to compel discovery to be heard on June 29, 2022. The Court granted all motions, requiring discovery responses be served by July 29, 2022. Plaintiffs have yet to serve any discovery responses.

The Court finds grounds for terminating sanctions. Plaintiffs failed to abide by the Court’s orders and serve discovery responses, even when granted an additional continuance on this motion. There is no indication that less severe sanction would produce compliance with discovery rules.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Manuel Perez’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. The action is dismissed, with prejudice, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.030(d)(3); 2030.2290(c); and 2031.320(c).

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.