Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV34403, Date: 2022-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34403    Hearing Date: September 28, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendant Trader Joe’s Company’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions

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

BACKGROUND

On September 17, 2021, Plaintiff Knarik Der Boghosians (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Trader Joe’s Company (“Defendant”) for general negligence and premises liability.

On January 6, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.

On August 3, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions to be heard on September 28, 2022. Defendant filed supplemental papers on August 11, 2022.

The trial date currently set for March 17, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Defendant requests the Court issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiff, or, in the alternative, issue evidentiary, issue and monetary sanctions.

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 properly served Plaintiff with multiple pieces of discovery but never received Plaintiff’s responses. Defendant filed motions to compel discovery, with the Court granted on July 6, 2022. Plaintiff has yet to provide the Court mandated discovery responses, despite them being due on July 16, 2022. Plaintiff was also ordered to appear for a deposition by August 6, 2022; parties agreed to set the deposition for August 5, 2022. Plaintiff did not appear for the deposition, despite making no objection or request for a continuance.

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

CONCLUSION

Defendant Trader Joe’s Company’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED.  Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice. 

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.