Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District 

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Dr. Laser MedSpa, PC 

 

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Charlsey Morgan  

 

BACKGROUND 

  This case arises from a claim of medical negligence.  Plaintiff Charlesey Morgan suffered an allergic reaction to neurotoxin injections performed by Defendant Dr. Laser MedSpa, PC.  Plaintiff alleges she did not consent to the use of an off-brand injection and thought she was receiving Botox.  The operative complaint alleges claims for medical negligence and battery.   

On August 22, 2022, Defendant served its Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.  (Singh Decl. ¶ 2.)  Responses were due by September 26, 2022.  (Id.)  Although no meet and confer is required when no responses are received, Defendant made six attempts to meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding the document requests, to no avail.  (Id. ¶¶ 3-9.)   

Defendant then filed a motion to compel, and Plaintiff failed to file an opposition to the motion.  (Exs. D, E.)  On January 20, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s unopposed motion to compel, requiring responses within 30 days or by February 20, 2023.  (Ex. F.)  Defendant provided notice of the order to Plaintiff’s counsel.  (Ex. F.)  However, to date, no responses have been received.  (Raphelt Decl. ¶3.)  Defendant has attempted to contact Plaintiff via telephone and email several times since the February due date; however, Plaintiff’s counsel has not responded.  (Id. ¶¶ 4-5.) 

On June 23, 2023, Defendant brought a motion for terminating sanctions.  (Id. ¶6.)  The Court on its own motion declared the case complicated and transferred it to Department 205.  The Court specifically stated the motion for terminating sanctions could be re-set at the Case Management Conference.  (Ex. I; Raphelt Decl. ¶9.)  On August 4, 2023, on a telephone call with defense counsel, Plaintiff’s counsel represented that Plaintiff would provide responses to the document requests.  (Raphelt Decl. ¶11.)  Based on these representations, defense counsel did not raise the issue of the motion for terminating sanctions at the Case Management Conference.  (Id. ¶12.)  However, since his appearance at the Case Management Conference, Plaintiff’s counsel has once again stopped responding to defense counsel and has not provided the outstanding discovery responses.  (Id. ¶13.) 

This hearing is on Defendant’s renewed motion for terminating sanctions.  Defendant argues terminating sanctions are warranted because Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s January 20, 2023 order compelling her to respond to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One.  Plaintiff has also failed to respond to Defendant’s numerous informal attempts to obtain the discovery responses.  No opposition has been filed as of the date of this tentative ruling.   

LEGAL STANDARD 

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 permits courts to impose sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. Section 2023.010 provides a non-exhaustive list of conduct that is considered misuse of the discovery process, including as relevant here, failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery and disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (Cal. Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d), (g).)  

Further, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 subdivision (d) gives courts the authority to issue a terminating sanction by one of four following orders: (1) an order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in misuse of the discovery process; (2) an order staying further proceedings until an order for discovery is obeyed; (3) an order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party; or (4) an order rendering a default judgment against that party.  

In determining whether to impose terminating sanctions, trial courts must consider the totality of the circumstances, including whether the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of informal and formal attempts to obtain the discovery. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App,4th 1225, 1246.) 

The trial court has broad discretion in selecting discovery sanctions, subject to reversal only for abuse. (Reedy v. Bussell (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1293; Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 928–929.)  The trial court should consider both the conduct being sanctioned and its effect on the party seeking discovery and, in choosing a sanction, should “attempt[] to tailor the sanction to the harm caused by the withheld discovery.” (Do It Urself Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Brown, Leifer, Slatkin & Berns (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 27, 36.) 

The discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.  “Discovery 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.” (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 231 Cal.App.3d at p. 487.)  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.) 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff refuses to provide responses to Defendant’s document requests despite the Court’s January 20, 2023 order compelling the responses.  Plaintiff has not explained her failure to comply, and accordingly, the Court can only treat the failure as willful.  An order compelling the discovery responses have not curbed Plaintiff’s discovery abuses.  Therefore, a harsher sanction is warranted.   

“[C]ourts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders.”  (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390¿(quoting¿Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1244-46); see also Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622¿(terminating sanctions imposed after defendants failed to comply with one court order to produce discovery);¿Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 491¿(disapproved on other grounds in¿Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 478, n. 4) (terminating sanctions imposed against plaintiff for failing to comply with a discovery order and for violating various discovery statutes).) 

Accordingly, given Plaintiff’s history of failing to comply with her discovery obligations, her failure to respond to informal attempts to secure her responses, her willful failure to comply with this Court’s discovery order, her failure to even oppose this motion for terminating sanctions, and the fact that less severe sanctions have not served to curb Plaintiff’s discovery abuses, the Court concludes that terminating sanctions are warranted.     

 

 

CONCLUSION 

   Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions and dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: October 25, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court