Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 21STCV40146, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40146    Hearing Date: February 10, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On November 1, 2021, Molly First and Colby Audette (collectively “Plaintiffs” or “Cross-Defendants”) filed this action against Sparkle S. Blount, individually and as Trustee of the Toni Rose Family Trust (“Defendant” or “Cross-Complainant”), alleging (1) specific performance, (2) breach of contract, and (3) fraud.

            The action stems from a residential purchase agreement (the “Agreement”) between Plaintiffs and Defendant whereby Defendant was to sell the real property located at 2142 S. Sycamore Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90016 (the “Property”) to Plaintiffs. Defendant allegedly reneged on the Agreement by refusing to sell the Property to Plaintiffs.

            On April 29, 2022, Defendant filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiffs and various cross-defendants, alleging that she was fraudulently induced into the sales agreement.  

            On January 6, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s deposition. On January 11, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motions to compel verifications to Defendant’s responses to discovery. Defendant has not complied with either order. On January 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for terminating sanctions asking the Court to strike Defendant’s answer and cross-complaint.

LEGAL STANDARD

 The discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination. If a lesser sanction fails to curb misuse, a greater sanction is warranted: continuing misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally harsher sanctions until the sanction is reached that will curb the abuse. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.) “The penalty 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.” (Wilson v. Jefferson (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 952, 959.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff argues that terminating sanctions are warranted because Defendant has now disobeyed two court orders and continues to ignore her discovery obligations. Defendant avers that she is dealing with personal and financial hardships, including the death of her mother and exposure to COVID-19. Furthermore, Defendant’s counsel recently withdrew in October 2022. Defendant requests more time to seek new counsel.

            The Court finds that terminating sanctions are too drastic at this stage. This is the first instance of Defendant disobeying a court order. Sanctions should be incremental and proportionate. (See Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 992; Wilson, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 959.) Furthermore, the law favors resolution on the merits, and doubts are resolved in favor of the party requesting relief. (Caldwell v. Methodist Hospital (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1521, 1524.) Defendant’s counsel recently withdrew, and Defendant is in the process of obtaining new counsel to litigate the merits of the case.  

            However, Defendant’s pro per status does not excuse her from her discovery obligations. Defendant must respond to discovery regardless of whether she is represented by counsel. Plaintiff is not required to sustain continuous delays due to Defendant’s personal issues. Nonmonetary sanctions are still possible should Defendant continue to fail to meet her discovery obligations.    

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Molly First’s motion for terminating sanctions is DENIED. Defendant is to produce responses to the subject discovery without objection within 30 days.  Defendant shall have her deposition taken on March 10, 2023, at 10:00 a.m.