Judge: James A. Mangione, Case: 37-2019-00053213-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2023-11-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 05, 2023

10/06/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-75 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:James A Mangione

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2019-00053213-CU-PO-CTL STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS ABB MOTORS AND MECHAANICAL INC [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff Truck Insurance Exchange's Motion for Terminating Sanctions is denied.

The Court has authority under CCP § 2023.030(d) to impose terminating sanctions for misuse of the discovery process. However, the trial court 'cannot impose sanctions for misuse of the discovery process as a punishment.' (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.) 'Preventing parties from presenting their cases on the merits is a drastic measure; 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.' (Wantuch v. Davis (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 786, 795.) As terminating sanctions are 'the ultimate sanction,' imposing them is not a decision to be made lightly.

(Doppes, 174 Cal. App. 4th at 992.) The Court does not find such a sanction appropriate here.

Plaintiff's motion relates to two categories of documents: two 3D CAD models and short videos depicting Taco's assembly of its water pumps ('Category A') and items 'a' through 'i' contained within Taco's expert files ('Category B'). According to Defense Counsel, the Category A documents are demonstratives that were created in August 2023 for trial purposes and produced by the discovery cut off date. This does not run afoul of the discovery process of the CMO order. As to Category B, Defendant's experts submitted declarations stating that items 'b' through 'h' were publicly available documents obtained online and included within their expert files. The Court finds no sanctionable conduct as to these documents. Defense Counsel asserts that item 'i' was included in the expert file for Plaintiff's expert, Blake Lander. Therefore, Plaintiff was already aware and in possession of this document. Finally, item 'a' is an interactive AUTOCAD created by Defendant's expert, Kenneth Van Dissel. Even assuming this document should have been produced earlier, the Court finds that terminating sanctions are not warranted. Instead, the Court will address any issues relating to this document via motion in limine as necessary.

The minute order is the order of the Court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3017687  14