Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 21STCV42024, Date: 2023-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42024    Hearing Date: May 8, 2023    Dept: 61

I.                   MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

The court may impose terminating sanctions, include an order striking pleadings, and order dismissing an action, or an order rendering judgment by default against a party, for conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.) This conduct include “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery,” and “[d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)

Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules.  (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.)  Dismissal is a drastic measure, and terminating sanctions should only be ordered when there has been previous noncompliance with a rule or order and it appears a less severe sanction would not be effective.  (Link v. Cater (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1326.)  “[A] penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.”  (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.)

Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority and Walsh Shea Corridor Constructors (Defendants) move for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff Dana Pharr. Defendants cite this court’s two prior orders against Pharr, an order of December 7, 2022, compelling her responses to discovery, and an order of January 19, 2023, compelling an inspection of her premises. Defendants claim that Pharr has not provided discovery responses or permitted inspection of the property. (Guest Decl. ¶¶ 5–7.) Pharr previously indicated to Defendants her intent to dismiss her claims in the instant lawsuit. (See 12/16/22 Elechyan Decl. ¶ 6.) However, no request for dismissal has been filed.

Defendants have demonstrated entitlement to terminating sanctions. Pharr has not complied with two separate discovery orders of this court, and further interim discovery orders are unlikely to produce compliance where Pharr has no intention of remaining in the case. Pharr has filed no opposition to this motion to contradict Defendants’ showing.

Accordingly, the motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED.