Judge Jill Feeney, Case 21STCV28233 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling

This is an action for premises liability arising from a bicycle crash which took place in December 2020. Plaintiff Katheryn Cooper filed her Complaint against Defendant the City of Los Angeles.

On July 8, 2022 the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s written discovery requests and ordered Plaintiff to serve responses and pay $600 in sanctions within 20 days of the order. To date, Defendant has not received responses or payment of sanctions.

If a party engages in the misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.) Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 provides, in relevant part, that “[m]isuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: … (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery . . . (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery.”

“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 impose terminating sanctions against Plaintiff because she failed to obey the Court’s order compelling discovery responses and to pay sanctions to Defendant.

The Court may grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss because Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s July 8, 2022 order is preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules. According to the July 8, 2022 minute order, Defendant served Plaintiff with requests for written discovery on November 23, 2021. Defendant extended Plaintiff’s time to respond on several occasions. Plaintiff failed to respond for many months, forcing Defendant to file a motion to compel. After the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel discovery response, Plaintiff failed to respond within the 20 days allotted and failed to communicate with Defendant regarding the discovery responses and sanctions. (Gonzalez Decl., ¶6.)

Plaintiff never responded to Defendant’s discovery requests or paid sanctions despite the July 8, 2022 order. Plaintiff has now delayed serving discovery responses for nearly a year without any communication with Defendant. Plaintiff has not opposed this motion and appears to have no interest in further litigating this matter. Therefore, the Court finds terminating sanctions proper.