Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 21STCV08617, Date: 2023-04-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV08617    Hearing Date: April 19, 2023    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Hanks v. Parker, Case No. 21STCV08617

Hearing Date April 19, 2023

Plaintiff Hanks’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions  

On May 4, 2022 the court granted plaintiff Hanks’ motions to compel, requiring defendant Parker to provide further responses to discovery requests and appear for her deposition. On October 6, 2022 Hanks moved for terminating sanctions, as Parker failed to comply with the May 4, 2022 order. The court denied terminating sanctions but ordered Parker to supplement responses and appear for deposition within 30 days.

Hanks again moves for terminating sanctions, arguing Parker has not complied with either prior order. Hanks argues Parker failed to appear for deposition and provided deficient responses to form interrogatories Nos. 2.3, 6.4, 6.5 and 15.1 and requests for production of documents Nos. 1-25.

Terminating sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse or evidence that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules. Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516. The purpose of terminating sanctions is not to punish but to secure compliance with the court’s orders and the party’s discovery obligations. Elec. Funds Sols., LLC v. Murphy (2005) 134 Cal. App. 4th 1161, 1183.

Deposition

On October 6, 2022 the court ordered Parker to “make herself available for deposition within thirty days.” The court noted that “[i]f defendant fails to appear, plaintiff may renew this motion.” 10/6/22 minute order, pg. 3.

Hanks’ counsel chose not to schedule Parker’s deposition until he determines that defendant adequately responded to outstanding discovery. Kernan decl. at ¶¶32-33. Parker has not failed to appear; Kernan made a tactical choice not to notice the deposition. This cannot be held against Parker.

Form Interrogatories/Request for Production

On October 6, 2022 the court ordered Parker to provide supplemental discovery responses on or before November 7, 2022. In response to the court’s order, Parker supplemented her production on November 8, 2022. Separate statement pgs. 5-11. Hanks argues the supplemental responses are deficient.

Since Parker complied with the order to supplement, the court will not impose the terminating, issue or monetary sanctions Hanks requests. Hanks, however, raises valid concerns about the responses, arguing they are deficient in several ways, including failing to attempt to procure information that should be accessible to Parker, being evasive and insufficient. While these concerns may be well-taken, this is not a motion to compel further discovery responses. Hanks is entitled to file such a motion, giving Parker the opportunity to supplement responses and/or oppose the motion. As this is a motion for terminating and/or issue sanctions, the court cannot order supplemental responses via this motion. DENIED.