Judge: David A. Hoffer, Case: 30-2021-1182565, Date: 2022-10-07 Tentative Ruling

The unopposed motion for terminating sanctions of Defendant Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. (“WDPR”), joined by Defendant Steve Kothlow (“Kothlow”), is GRANTED.

Sanctions are warranted when there are “[m]isuses of the discovery process,” such as “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery” or “[d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery.” (C.C.P. §§ 2023.010; 2023.030.)

C.C.P. §§ 2030.290(c) [re interrogatories], 2031.300(c) [re request for production] and 2025.450(h) [re deposition] provide that if a party fails to obey an order compelling discovery responses or an order compelling attendance at a deposition, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction, and/or monetary sanctions. See also, Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992 [discussing terminating sanctions].

Based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s May 16, 2022 discovery orders and failure to prosecute this action, WDPR seeks terminating sanctions against Plaintiff in the form of an order dismissing Plaintiff’s claims in this action with prejudice in favor of WDPR. The Court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted based on the history of Plaintiff’s actions in this case.

Similar to the defendant in Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, cited by WDPR, Plaintiff failed to respond to WDPR’s and Kothlow’s written discovery, failed to respond to the motions to compel regarding said discovery, failed to obey the Court’s order to provide discovery responses and appear for his deposition, failed to respond to the present motion for terminating sanctions, and to date has failed to respond to any of the written discovery or to appear for his deposition. (See Urey Decl. ¶¶ 5-11, Exhs. A-D thereto; McInnes Decl. ¶¶ 6-9; see also ROA 158.)

In addition, Plaintiff did not appear at the May 16, 2022 hearing on the motions to compel. (ROA 158; Urey Decl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff was served with notice of the Court’s order on May 18, 2022 (see ROA 173), but there is no evidence that he made any effort to comply with the order over the last four and a half months. He also failed to file an opposition brief for the present motion. Additionally, while Plaintiff is in pro per, he has had since December 20, 2021 (when he was served with notice of the Court’s ruling granting his former attorney’s motion to be relieved) to find new counsel, but he has failed to do so.

Plaintiff misused the discovery process by failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery and then by failing to obey a court order to provide discovery. WDPR contends that Plaintiff’s inaction has seriously hindered its ability to litigate this matter in a productive manner and to prepare a valid defense. (Mtn at 2:13-15.) Based on all of Plaintiff’s actions in the case, it appears to the Court that no lesser sanction than a terminating sanction will protect WDPR’s and Kothlow’s interests in the litigation.

Accordingly, the motion is granted, as is the request for joinder. (See Barak v. Quisenberry Law Firm (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 654, 661.)

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice as against WDPR and Kothlow.

WDPR is ordered to give a notice of this ruling.