Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV30846, Date: 2023-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV30846    Hearing Date: February 27, 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 February 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Request for Dismissal, as to the entire action, with prejudice.

On January 26, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions to be heard on February 27, 2023.

The trial date currently set for April 10, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant requests the Court issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiff, specifically Plaintiff’s complaint, 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

Defendant’s motion specifically requests the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff recently submitted a Request for Dismissal as to the entire action, with prejudice; although it did not include defendant’s cross-complaint. 

The Court will inquire as to the cross-complaint at the hearing of this matter.