Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV30846, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV30846    Hearing Date: January 19, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Lorraine Factor’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions

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

BACKGROUND

On August 13, 2020, Plaintiff Christopher Watts (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Lorraine Factor (“Defendant”) for negligence.

On March 23, 2022, Defendant filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff for breach of contract.

On November 17, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions to be heard on January 19, 2023.

The trial date currently set for April 10, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant requests the Court issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiff, or, in the alternative, impose sanctions totaling $1,035.00 on 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

On April 12, 2022, Defendant propounded discovery on Plaintiff; Plaintiff did not serve timely discovery responses. Defendant brought forward a motion to compel and to deem request for admissions admitted, which the Court granted on in September 2022. Plaintiff was ordered to serve discovery responses within 30 days of the hearing on the motion. Plaintiff has yet to serve any discovery responses. The Court finds a basis for terminating sanctions, as there is no indication that any lesser order would result in Plaintiff producing discovery.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Lorraine Factor’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant is dismissed, with prejudice.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.