Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District 

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Mikhail Chernov individually and as Trustee of the MC2011 Revocable Trust and Olga Chernova 

 

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Paola Joice Miller  

 

BACKGROUND 

  This case arises from a landlord-tenant dispute.  Plaintiffs Mikhail Chernov and Olga Chernova (“Landlords”) entered into a written lease agreement with Defendant Paola Joice Miller (“Tenant”) for property located at 1070 Somera Road, Los Angeles, California (the “Premises”).  Tenant failed to pay rent.  Landlords sued for breach of contract.  Tenant is self-represented.   

On March 21, 2023, Landlords served Tenant with a notice of deposition.  (Frish Decl. ¶5.)  Tenant failed to appear for her deposition.  (Id. ¶6.)   

On May 18, 2023, the Court held an IDC on Tenant’s failure to appear for her deposition.  Tenant failed to appear at the IDC.  (Id. ¶7.) 

On June 12, 2023, Landlords filed a motion to compel Tenant’s deposition and requested monetary sanctions.  (Id. ¶8.)  On July 20, 2023, the Court granted Landlords’ motion and awarded sanctions against Tenant.  (Ex. 1 to Frish Decl.)  To date, Tenant has not paid the Court-ordered sanctions.  (Id. ¶9.) 

On August 11, 2023, Landlords once again noticed Tenant’s deposition.  The deposition was set to take place on August 23, 2023.  (Ex. 2 to Frish Decl.)  On August 21, 2023, Landlords provided Tenant with the zoom information for her deposition.  (Ex. 3 to Frish Decl.)  Tenant did not object to the deposition.  (Frish Decl. ¶13.)  Tenant failed to appear for her deposition.  (Id. ¶14.) 

This hearing is on Landlords’ motion for terminating sanctions or in the alternative for issue and/or evidentiary sanctions.  Landlords argue that terminating, issue and/or evidentiary sanctions are necessary when, as here, Tenant has defied the Court’s prior orders and less severe sanctions have proven ineffective.   No opposition was filed as of the posting 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 

Tenant refuses to sit for her deposition despite the Court’s July 20, 2023 order compelling the deposition.  Tenant has also failed to pay monetary sanctions as required under the order.  Tenant has not explained her failure to comply, and accordingly, the Court can only treat the failure as willful.  An order compelling the deposition and an award of monetary sanctions have not curbed Tenant’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 Tenant’s history of failing to comply with her discovery obligations, 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 Tenant’s discovery abuses, the Court concludes that terminating sanctions are warranted.     

CONCLUSION 

   Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for terminating sanctions. Tenant’s answer is stricken.  Plaintiffs are ordered to provide a proposed default judgment by November 6, 2023. The Court sets a status conference re entry of default judgment on December 6, 2023 at 9:00 a.m.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: October 5, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court