Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 23STCV28366, Date: 2025-05-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV28366    Hearing Date: May 29, 2025    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Lorraine Perez moves for terminating sanctions for Defendants’ failure to comply with the Court’s discovery and discovery sanction orders. Plaintiff also demurs to Defendants’ answer to her first amended complaint.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions. The Court strikes Defendants’ answer and enters their defaults. Plaintiff’s demurrer is moot.

Background

            Plaintiff Lorraine Perez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Young C. Shin and Ok Ja Shin (“Defendants”) on November 20, 2023, asserting claims for discriminatory practices in public accommodation and violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. She filed her operative second amended complaint (“SAC”) on April 15, 2024.

            The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses from both defendants on October 15, 2024.

            Defendants answered the SAC on February 25, 2025.

            On February 28, 2025, Plaintiff moved for terminating sanctions; on March 6, 2025, Plaintiff demurred to Defendants’ answer. The demurrer and motion are now before the Court. Defendants filed no opposition to either, and Plaintiff filed no reply.

            The parties appeared for a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions on April 10, 2025. The Court continued the hearing to this date and ordered the parties to file a joint declaration at least 5 days prior establishing whether Defendants had complied with their discovery obligations.

            Plaintiff filed a unilateral declaration on May 22, 2025. Defendant filed no declaration. Plaintiff’s declaration suggests (but does not expressly state) that, apart from paying monetary sanctions owed, Defendant has provided no further discovery.

            The motion comes before the Court for a second time, along with Plaintiff’s demurrer to Defendants’ answer. Both remain unopposed.

Legal Standard

If a party fails to obey an order compelling answers to interrogatories or requests for production, the court may make orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions under Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery Act. (Code Civ. Proc., §§  2030.290, subd. (c) and 2031.300, subd. (c).)

The court applies discovery sanctions to correct prejudice, not to punish misbehavior. (See McGinty v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 204, 210.) “Discovery sanctions serve to remedy the harm caused to the party suffering the discovery misconduct. [Citation.] Because discovery sanctions are not designed to punish, ‘ “sanctions should be tailored to serve that remedial purpose, should not put the moving party in a better position than he would otherwise have been had he obtained the requested discovery, and should be proportionate to the offending party's misconduct.” ’ [Citation.]” (Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. Hennings (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 57, 74.)

“[S]anctions are generally imposed in an incremental approach[.]” (Department of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 154, 191-192, disapproved of on other grounds in Presbyterian Camp & Conference Centers, Inc v. Superior Court (2021) 12 Cal.5th 493, 516, fn. 17.) In general, a court may not impose an issue, evidence, or terminating sanction unless a party disobeys a court order. (Moofly Prods., LLC v Favila (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1, 11.) However, more severe sanctions are warranted “where the party's discovery obligation is clear and the failure to comply with that obligation is clearly apparent.” (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1424.) The court should impose sanctions as appropriate to ensure one party’s abuses do not deprive the other of a fair trial. (See Pate v. Channel Lumber Co. (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1447, 1454-1455.)

Discussion

Plaintiff moved for terminating sanctions on February 28, 2025. In support of her motion, she cites Defendants and their counsel’s continued failure to comply with discovery orders issued October 15, 2024. On that date, the Court granted motions compelling Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Sets One, and ordered them to respond without objections within 20 days of the Order. (The Court denied Plaintiff’s motions to deem RFAs admitted because the defendants had served substantially compliant responses.) The Court imposed $2,000.00 in sanctions, which have since been paid.

The parties appeared for the first hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions on April 10, 2025. The Court imposed $5,000.00 in sanctions on Defendants and continued the hearing to this date, ordering the parties to “file an update about Defendant[s’] compliance with the previous court order at least five (5) days before the next hearing. [¶] If Defendants are not in compliance with the Court's orders, the Court may issue terminating sanctions.” (04-10-2025 Minute Order.)

Plaintiff filed a Status Report Re: Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions on May 22, 2025. The report indicates that the $5,000.00 in sanctions have been paid. It does not state whether responses have been provided in compliance with the October 15, 2024 discovery order.

No defendant filed any status report or declaration regarding their compliance with the Court’s prior order.

The Court takes Plaintiff’s declaration, and the failure of defendant to file any, to mean that Defendants still have not complied.

Terminating sanctions are warranted.

Defendants have been in violation of Court orders for more than eight months. The Final Status Conference in this matter is set on August 1, 2025, only sixty-three days from this hearing date. Discovery closes in thirty-three days. The Code permits thirty days to respond to discovery requests. As a result, Plaintiff has been deprived entirely of a meaningful opportunity to propound supplemental discovery or move for further responses should Defendants’ eventual responses prove insufficient, unless the Court were to continue the trial and related dates. This case was filed in 2023, and Plaintiff is entitled to prompt disposition of her claims; the Court will not impose delay caused solely by Defendants’ discovery misconduct.

The Court can identify no lesser sanctions apart from terminating sanctions that might cure the prejudice Defendants have wrought to Plaintiff’s case at this point. And Defendants filed no opposition to Plaintiff’s motion that identifies a lesser sanctions, explains Defendants’ misconduct, or offers any other argument why a sanction should not be imposed.