Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV44153, Date: 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44153    Hearing Date: January 26, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendants County of Los Angeles and Hans Christian's Motion for Terminating Sanctions

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

BACKGROUND

On December 2, 2021, Plaintiff Christopher Michael Smith, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants County of Los Angeles (“County”), City of Los Angeles (“City”) and Hans Christian (“Christian”) for motor vehicle negligence and liability of public entities.

On February 17, 2022, the County and Christian filed an answer.

On December 21, 2022, the County and Christian (“Moving Defendants”) filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions to be heard on January 26, 2023.

The trial date currently set for June 1, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUEST

Moving Defendants request the Court issue terminating sanctions against 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 September 21, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff to appear for his deposition within 30 days of the hearing on the motion; Plaintiff did not appear for a deposition, nor did he reach out to Defendants to schedule a deposition. Additionally, on November 8, 2022, the Court granted Moving Defendants’ discovery motions, including a Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted. The Request for Admissions contained admissions including that Plaintiff was at fault and there are no facts to support allegations against Defendants. The Court finds a basis for terminating sanctions, as there is no indication that any lesser order would result in Plaintiff producing discovery.

CONCLUSION

Defendants County of Los Angeles and Hans Christian's Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s complaint against County and Christian is dismissed, with prejudice.

Plaintiff is ordered to appear for a deposition within 20 days of the hearing on the motion.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.