Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 21STLC08172 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC08172, Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC08172 Hearing Date: November 7, 2022 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Pedro Ernesto Dominguez Varela

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Rosalyn Davis

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2023.010, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The hearing on the Motion for Terminating Sanctions filed by Defendant Pedro Ernesto Dominguez Varela is CONTINUED to DECEMBER 7, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. Plaintiff is ordered to file supplemental papers addressing the issues discussed herein at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing. Defendant may also file a reply to Plaintiff’s supplemental papers.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on October 12, 2022 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as of November 3, 2022 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On November 15, 2021, Plaintiff Rosalyn Davis (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Pedro Ernesto Dominguez Varela (“Defendant”) for negligence arising out of an alleged automobile accident that took place on or about May 13, 2020.

On December 20, 2021, Defendant filed an Answer.

On June 1, 2022, Defendant filed three Motions to Compel Responses to the following discovery requests: Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Demand for Production of Documents (Set One). The Court granted all three Motions to Compel and ordered Plaintiff to pay a total sum of $780 in sanctions within thirty (30) days. (6-22-22 Minute Order, 6-23-22 Minute Order.)

On July 18, 2022, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions (“Motion”). On September 28, 2022, the Court, on its own motion, continued the hearing on the Motion to November 7, 2022. (9-28-22 Minute Order.) On October 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Motion. No reply has been filed.

II. Legal Standard

Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence, or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010(d), (g), 2023.030; R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.)

Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.040 requires that “[a] request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” Furthermore, the notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.040.)

Monetary sanctions may be imposed “ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct…unless [the Court] finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.030(a).)

Issue sanctions may be imposed “ordering that designated facts shall be taken as established in the action in accordance with the claim of the party adversely affected by the misuse of the discovery process. The court may also impose an issue sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.030(b).)

Evidence sanctions may be imposed “by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from introducing designated matters in evidence.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.030(c).)

In more extreme cases, the Court may also impose terminating sanctions by “striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings,” “staying further proceedings,” “dismissing the action, or any part of the action,” or “rending a judgment by default” against the party misusing the discovery process. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.030(d).) The court should look to the totality of the circumstances in determining whether terminating sanctions are appropriate. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) “[A] penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.” (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.) “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.” (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604-605.)

III. Discussion

A. Defendant’s Motion

Defendant moves for terminating sanctions, specifically dismissal of Plaintiff’s instant action in its entirety. (Mot. pp. 1-2.) Defendant argues that “Plaintiff has repeatedly demonstrated her disregard for the discovery process, her obligations under the Code of Civil Procedure, and this Court’s Order.” (Ibid. p. 4.) Particularly, Plaintiff has failed to serve responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production (Set One), even after Defendant served her with the Court’s Orders from June 22 and 23, 2022, ordering Plaintiff to provide responses. (Ibid. at p. 3; 6-22-22 Minute Order; 6-23-22 Minute Order; Manuel Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. B.) As of the date of the instant Motion, Plaintiff has not served any responses to the discovery requests. (Manuel Decl. ¶ 4.) Defendant states that “through no fault of their [sic] own, is burdened by this lawsuit initiated by Plaintiff” and since Plaintiff is not complying with discovery or the Court’s Orders, “Defendant should be relieved of this lawsuit and Plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.” (Mot. p. 4.)

On October 12, 2022, Plaintiff’s Counsel filed a declaration opposing the Motion. Plaintiff’s counsel states that the Motion is moot because “Plaintiff supplied full and complete discovery responses in July 2022.” (Yeager Decl. ¶ 2.) The Opposition was timely filed with the Court and served on the Defendant. Defendant has not filed a reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition.

The Court cannot discern whether full and complete discovery responses were submitted based on Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration. For this reason, the Court CONTINUES the hearing on the Motion and orders Plaintiff to file proof with the Court that complete discovery responses have been served on Defendant. Defendant may also file a reply to Plaintiff’s supplemental papers.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons,

Moving party is ordered to give notice.