Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: Tran v. Sumpter, Date: 2022-12-21 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING: 

Defendant Ronnell Sumpter moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff Angel Tran. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.

Failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010(d).) So, too, is disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010(g); Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) Imposition of sanctions for misuse of discovery lies within the trial court’s discretion. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991.) If a party fails to obey an order compelling answers to discovery, the court may impose whatever sanctions are just, including monetary, issue, evidentiary, and/or terminating sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(a)-(d).) Which of the various sanctions may be imposed for disobedience of court orders, or whether sanctions will be granted at all, lies entirely within the court’s discretion. (See Pember v. Super. Ct. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 601, 604 [dealing with similar provision of former statute].) The court cannot impose sanctions as punishment; the choice of sanctions should not give the moving party more than it would have gotten had the discovery been responded to. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992; Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d, 300, 303.) Once a party is ordered by the court to provide responses to discovery, continued failure to respond may result in the imposition of more severe sanctions. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).)

Before issuing terminating sanctions, a court generally grants lesser sanctions such as orders staying the action until the derelict party complies, or orders declaring matters as admitted or established if answers are not received by a specified date, often accompanied with costs and fees to the moving party. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 99.) It is only when a party persists in disobeying the court’s orders that terminating sanctions are justified. (See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771.)

Here, Defendant seeks terminating sanctions for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this court’s 08/10/2022 order. Defendant fails to justify terminating sanctions at this time.

No later than 15 days after service of notice of this ruling, Plaintiff shall serve verified responses without objections to Defendant Sumpter’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Identification and Production of Documents (Set One).

No later than 15 days after service of the notice of this ruling, Plaintiff shall pay the monetary sanctions awarded 08/10/2022 to Defendant Sumpter, in the amount of $1500.

The Court cautions Plaintiff that further failure to comply with this court order and/or other discovery orders may result in more severe sanctions, including terminating sanctions (i.e., dismissal of the action).

Moving party to give notice.