Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 21STCV44661, Date: 2022-10-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV44661 Hearing Date: October 14, 2022 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
October 14, 2022
21STCV44661
Motion for Terminating Sanctions filed by Defendants Sk Md Kamruzzaman and Fatema Ferdousi
DECISION
The motion is granted.
The case is dismissed with prejudice.
Moving party is to provide notice and must file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.
Background
This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in August 2021. Plaintiff Vaca filed a complaint against Defendants on December 7, 2021.
Defendants filed the instant motion for terminating sanctions on September 16, 2022.
Summary
Moving Arguments
Defendants seek terminating sanctions against Plaintiff on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s August 12 and 15, 2022 orders compelling responses to Defendant’s discovery requests and also failed to pay sanctions as ordered.
Opposing Arguments
None.
Legal Standard
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].)
Discussion
Defendants argue that the Court may impose terminating sanctions against Plaintiff because she failed to obey the Court’s orders compelling discovery responses and to pay sanctions to Defendants.
The Court may grant Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions because Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s August 12 and 15, 2022 orders is preceded by a history of abuse and the evidence shows that the action is willful and that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules. According to the August 12 and 15, 2022 minute orders, Defendants served Plaintiff with requests for written discovery on January 6, 2022. Defendants extended Plaintiff’s time to respond on several occasions. Plaintiff’s counsel was then relieved as counsel in April 2022. Defendants sent Plaintiff meet and confer correspondence by mail and received no response. Plaintiff failed to respond, forcing Defendants to file a motion to compel in June 2022. After the Court granted Defendants’ motions to compel discovery response, Plaintiff failed to respond within the 30 days allotted and failed to communicate with Defendant regarding the discovery responses and sanctions. (Ogunnubi Decl., ¶¶4-6.)
Plaintiff never responded to Defendants’ discovery requests or paid sanctions despite the August 12 and 15, 2022 orders. Plaintiff has now delayed serving discovery responses for nine months 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.
