Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV29679, Date: 2022-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV29679    Hearing Date: October 5, 2022    Dept: 28

Richard M. Benoit’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions

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

BACKGROUND

On August 11, 2021, Plaintiffs Sarkis Janibekyan (“Janibekyan”) and Albert Byourdi (“Byourdi”) filed this action against Defendant Richard M. Benoit (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On September 21, 2021, Defendant filed an answer.

On August 29, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions to be heard on October 5, 2022.

The trial date currently set for February 8, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant requests the Court issue terminating sanctions against Byourdi.  

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 Byourdi with a deposition notice for September 21, 2021. Byourdi did not appear for or object to the deposition. Defendant then filed a Motion to Compel Byourdi’s deposition, which the Court granted on July 7, 2022. Byourdi did not appear for the deposition, despite his counsel being present at the ruling. Byourdi’s counsel advised they could not contact Byourdi and he would not appear for the deposition.

The Court finds grounds for terminating sanctions. Byourdi has failed to abide by the Court’s orders and appear for a deposition. There is no indication that less severe sanction would produce compliance with discovery rules. The Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Richard M. Benoit’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. Byourdi’s action against Defendant is dismissed with prejudice. 

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.