Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 22SMCV01905, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV01905    Hearing Date: January 24, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Mejia v. Campione, et al., Case No. 22SMCV01905

Hearing date January 24, 2024

(1) Defendant/Cross-Complainant Campione’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions

(2) Defendant/Cross-Complainant Woo’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Plaintiff sued defendants Campione and Woo in this motor vehicle accident matter. On October 13, 2023, the court ordered plaintiff to respond to all outstanding discovery within 30 days and to pay monetary sanctions. Defendants each bring a motion for terminating sanctions. Both defendants filed proofs of service of their respective motions. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to either motion.

Where a party fails to obey an order compelling answers to discovery, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.” Code Civ. Proc. §§2031.300; 2023.010(c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495. The court may impose terminating sanctions for misuse of the discovery process. Code Civ. Proc. §2023.030(d). Misuse of the discovery process includes failure to respond to discovery or disobeying a court order to provide discovery. Code Civ. Proc. §2023.010(d), (g). A terminating sanction may dismiss all or part of the action. Code Civ. Proc. §2023.030 (d)(3).

The court should consider the totality of the circumstances to determine if the actions were willful, the detriment to propounding party, and the number of attempts to obtain discovery. Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246. If a lesser sanction fails to curb abuse, a greater sanction is warranted. Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516. However, “the unsuccessful imposition of a lesser sanction is not an absolute prerequisite to the utilization of the ultimate sanction.” Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 787. Terminating sanctions should not be ordered lightly, but are justified where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and there is evidence that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance. Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.

Before sanctions may be imposed, the court must make an express finding of willful failure to serve the answers. Fairfield v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 113, 118. Lack of diligence may be deemed willful where the party understood its obligation, had ability to comply and failed to do. Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at 787; Fred Howland Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 605, 610-611. The party who failed to comply with discovery obligations has the burden of showing the failure was not willful. Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at 788; Cornwall v. Santa Monica Dairy Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 250; Evid. Code, §§ 500, 605.

Plaintiff filed no opposition to either motion and failed to respond to discovery or pay monetary sanctions and has disobeyed court orders to do so. Notice was provided. Plaintiff is deemed to have known of the discovery obligations and court order compelling compliance, and failed to show noncompliance was not willful. Given the foregoing, the Court finds the failure was willful and lesser sanctions would not curb the abuse. Accordingly, the motions are GRANTED. As the court is granting terminating sanctions, it declines to also impose monetary sanctions.