Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV16624, Date: 2023-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV16624    Hearing Date: February 21, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Michael Stan Case’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions 

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On April 30, 2020, Plaintiff Angel Alderete (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Michael Stan Case (“Case”), Avis Rent a Car System, LLC (“Avis System”), Avis Rent a Car (“Avis RAC”) and Avis Car Rental (“Avis CR”) for motor vehicle negligence.

On February 8, 2022, Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC (“Avis Budget”) and Avis System filed an answer on behalf of themselves, Avis RAC and Avis CR. On February 14, 2022, Case filed an answer. On March 3 ,2022, Avis CR was dismissed, without prejudice.

On December 30, 2022, Case filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions to be heard on February 21, 2023. On February 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition.

The trial date currently set for September 19, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Case requests the Court issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiff and impose sanctions totaling $1,110.00 on Plaintiff.

Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motion.

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

On February 22, 2022, Case served written discovery on Plaintiff. Plaintiff did not serve timely discovery responses. Case brought forward motions to compel, which the Court granted on October 20, 2022. Plaintiff was ordered to serve discovery responses by November 17, 2022. Plaintiff has still yet to serve discovery responses, but Plaintiff states it will provide discovery to Defendant prior to the hearing on this motion.

As Plaintiff intends to comply with the Court’s order to provide discovery responses, the Court does not find grounds for terminating sanctions. However, the delay is unjustified. Plaintiff cites that this is due to Plaintiff’s delay in providing responses, turnover at counsel’s office and the timeliness of translating discovery responses—none of this justifies a year long delay in providing discovery responses, especially when there existed a Court order to provide responses months ago. Case was prejudiced by Plaintiff’s lack of timely responses, warranting monetary sanctions.

Case requests sanctions totaling $1,110.00 based on 6 hours of attorney’s work at a rate of $175.00 per hour and 1 $60.00 filing fee. Attorney’s work is based on 3 hours spent drafting and 3 hours anticipated at the hearing. The Court awards sanctions totaling $760.00, based on 4 hours of attorney’s work and 1 $60.00 filling fee.

CONCLUSION

If Plaintiff has served verified responses to the outstanding discovery without objections, Defendant Michael Stan Case’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is DENIED.
             Michael Stan Case’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to pay $760.00 in sanctions to Case within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

              The Court advances and vacates the April 27, 2023 hearing on the Order to Show Cause that was set when the case was filed.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.