Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV14353, Date: 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV14353    Hearing Date: December 5, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendant University of Southern California’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions

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

BACKGROUND

On April 15, 2021, Plaintiff Theodor Rininger (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant University of Southern California (“Defendant”) for general negligence and premises liability.

On February 1, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.

On October 6, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions to be heard on November 17, 2022. The Court continued the hearing on the motion to December 5, 2022.

The trial date currently set for May 22, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant requests the Court issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiff. Defendant also requests sanctions totaling $1,170.00.

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 served Plaintiff with discovery on February 1, 2022; responses were due on March 8, 2022. Plaintiff failed to provide discovery responses. Defendant filed motions to compel discovery to be heard on August 23, 2022. The Court granted all motions, requiring discovery responses be served by September 6 and 22, 2022. Plaintiff has yet to serve any discovery responses.

The Court finds grounds for terminating sanctions. Plaintiff 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.

Defendant requests monetary sanctions totaling $1,170.00, based upon 5.2 hours of attorney’s work at a rate of $225.00 per hour. 3.2 hours were spent preparing the motion and 2 hours were spent appearing. The Court grants sanctions totaling $675.00.

CONCLUSION

Defendant University of Southern California’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff's action against Defendant is dismissed.

Defendant University of Southern California’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to pay $675.00 in sanctions to Defendant within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.