Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV15296, Date: 2022-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV15296    Hearing Date: October 11, 2022    Dept: 28

Plaintiffs Gabriela Romero Gonzalez and Lourdes Farias’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions

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

BACKGROUND

On April 21, 2020, Plaintiffs Gabriela Romero Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) and Lourdes Farias (“Farias”) filed this action against Defendant Debbie’s Bridal (“DB”) for general negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendant Bemas Investment, LLC (“Bemas”).

On July 21, 2020, DB filed an answer. On September 18, 2020, Bemas filed an answer. On November 9, 2021, the Court dismissed Bemas, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.

On September 15, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions, wrongfully filed as a Motion to Strike, to be heard on October 11, 2022.

The trial date currently set for February 8, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Plaintiffs request the Court issue terminating sanctions against DB, striking DB’s answer. Plaintiffs also request the Court impose sanctions totaling $1,461.65 on DB.

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

Plaintiffs propounded discovery on DB on February 25, 2021. After receiving no response, Plaintiffs brought motions to compel discovery responses, all of which the Court granted. The Court ordered DB to provide verified responses by June 25, 2022. DB has yet to serve the compelled responses.

The Court finds grounds for terminating sanctions. DB has failed to abide by the Court’s orders and serve discovery responses. There is no indication that less severe sanction would produce compliance with discovery rules. The Court grants the motion. The motion is GRANTED.  Defendant, Debbie’s Bridal’s answer is stricken pursuant to CCP 2023.030(d)(1).  In addition, the Court awards sanctions pursuant to 2023.030(a) in the amount of $660 (2hrs x 300 + $60).

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs Gabriela Romero Gonzalez and Lourdes Farias’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. Debbie’s Bridal’s answer is stricken.  Defendant, Debbie’s Bridal is ordered to pay $660 to Plaintiff by November 14, 2022. 

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.