Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV01179, Date: 2024-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV01179    Hearing Date: January 8, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      January 8, 2024                                   TRIAL DATE: August 24, 2024

CASE:                         NICOLE N. DRAZENOVIC, an individual, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a California public entity; DOES 1-50, inclusive. 

CASE NO.:                 22AHCV01179

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant County of Los Angeles

RESPONDING PARTY:      No response filed.

SERVICE:                              Filed October 10, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Defendant moves for terminating, evidentiary, and monetary sanctions.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Nicole N. Drazenovic’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that she suffered injuries from a dangerous condition on public property. Plaintiff alleges on February 9, 2022, she tripped and fell because of a pothole and suffered a fractured left ankle and contusions. Plaintiff filed a complaint on November 29, 2022, alleging two causes of action for (1) dangerous condition of public property and (2) dangerous condition of public property – failure to warn.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant’s motion for terminating or evidentiary sanctions is DENIED.

            Defendant’s request for monetary sanction is granted for a total of $1,150.

LEGAL STANDARD

            Section 2023.030 authorizes a trial court to impose monetary sanctions, issue sanctions, evidence sanctions, or terminating sanctions against ‘anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process.’ ” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991.) “The discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.” (Id. at p. 992.)

            Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (d) provides that a court may impose terminating sanctions by one of the following orders: “(1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process. [¶] (2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed. [¶] (3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party. [¶] (4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.”

DISCUSSION

            Defendant moves for terminating, evidentiary, and monetary sanctions. On July 26, 2023, this court granted Defendant’s motion to compel discovery related to Plaintiff’s interrogatories. Plaintiff was ordered to provide responses within 20 days. Defendant provides it attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff but received no response and no discovery responses. (Pogosyan Decl. ¶¶ 6-8.) Defendant has established that Plaintiff failed to comply with a court order compelling discovery responses.

“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.” (Mileikowsky v. Tenent Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280 “Mileikowsky”.)

            “The discovery statutes thus ‘evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.’ [Citation.] Although in extreme cases a court has the authority to order a terminating sanction as a first measure [citations], a terminating sanction should generally not be imposed until the court has attempted less severe alternatives and found them to be unsuccessful and/or the record clearly shows lesser sanctions would be ineffective [citations].” (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.)

            Here, Plaintiff has failed to respond to a single court order. Under the present circumstances, neither terminating sanctions nor the evidentiary sanctions suggested are warranted.  Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is granted at $230 per hour for 5 hours worked for a total of $1,150.  Additional reasonable sanctions may be discussed at the hearing.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion for terminating or evidentiary sanctions is DENIED.

            Defendant’s request for monetary sanction is granted for a total of $1,150.

Dated:   January 8, 2023                                             ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court