Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

January 5, 2022

20STCV43301

Motion for terminating sanctions filed by Defendant Scott Maynard

The motion is granted.

The case is dismissed with prejudice.

Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.

This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision that occurred in November 2018. Plaintiff Cesar Gabriel filed his Complaint against Defendant Scott Maynard on November 12, 2020.

On January 3, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was granted.

On October 14, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to FROGs, SROGs, and RPDs.

On December 9, 2022, Defendant filed the instant motion for terminating sanctions.

Moving Arguments

Defendant argues that terminating sanctions are appropriate because Plaintiff failed to obey the Court’s October 14, 2022 order compelling Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests.

Opposing Arguments

None.

“The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse ‘after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.’” (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 377, 390, quoting Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal. App. 4th 1225, 1246.)  

“Generally, ‘[a] decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly.  But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.’” (Los Defensores, supra, 223 Cal. App. 4th at p. 390 [citation omitted].)   

“Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders.” (Los Defensores, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390 citing Lang, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1244-1246 [discussing cases]; see, e.g., Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622 [terminating sanctions imposed (by striking the defendant’s Answer and subsequently granting default judgment) 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 the plaintiff for failing to comply with a discovery order and for violating various discovery statutes].) 

Defendant argues that the Court may grant terminating sanctions because Plaintiff failed to obey the Court’s order compelling discovery responses.

The Court may grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss because Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s October 14, 2022 order is preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would produce compliance with the discovery rules. According to the October 12, 2022 minute order, Plaintiff’s discovery responses were originally due on April 13, 2022. Defendant has not received Plaintiff’s responses to date despite the Court’s order compelling Plaintiff’s responses. (Fakih Decl., ¶7.) The responses have now been delayed for ten months. Plaintiff did not appear for the October 14, 2022 hearing and did not oppose the instant motion. It appears Plaintiff is no longer interested in litigating this matter.

Plaintiff has never responded to Defendant’s discovery requests despite the October 14, 2022 order. Therefore, the Court finds terminating sanctions proper.