Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV42253, Date: 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42253    Hearing Date: January 20, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On November 16, 2021, plaintiff Dwayne Foster (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Maajida Muhammad (“Defendant”) arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on November 17, 2019.

On December 19, 2022, Defendant filed the instant motion for terminating sanctions due to Plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s August 11, 2022 order.

As of January 13, 2023, no opposition has been filed.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

The imposition of specific sanctions typically depends on the severity of the party’s transgression.  “The trial court cannot impose sanctions for misuse of the discovery process as a punishment.”  (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 967, 992.) Rather, any given sanction must be “tailor[ed] to the harm caused by the withheld discovery.”  (Do It Urself Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Brown, Leifer, Slatkin & Berns (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 27, 36 (superseded by statute on other grounds).)  This is because “the purpose of discovery sanctions is not to provide a weapon for punishment, forfeiture and the avoidance of a trial on the merits, but to prevent abuse of the discovery process and correct the problem presented.”  (Parker v. Wolters Kluwer U.S., Inc. (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 285, 301.)

Code Civ. Proc. §2023.030, subd. (c) & (d) authorizes the Court to impose terminating or evidentiary sanction due to a party’s misuse of the discovery process.  “A trial court must be cautious when imposing a terminating sanction because the sanction eliminates a party’s fundamental right to trial, thus implicating due process rights.” (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal. App. 4th 566, 604, review denied (July 27, 2016).) “Discovery sanctions should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.”  (Doppes, supra, 174 Cal. App. 4th at 992.) “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. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 262, 279–80, as modified on denial of reh'g (May 4, 2005).) Equally important, “a terminating sanction issued solely because of a failure to pay a monetary discovery sanction is never justified.”  (Newland v. Superior Court¿(1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

III.        DISCUSSION

Here, on August 11, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses without objections to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Specially Prepared Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand for Identification and Production of Document, Set One, within 20 days and to pay monetary sanctions. (See August 11, 2022 Minute Order at pg. 2.) Also, the Court ordered Plaintiff and his attorney of record to pay, jointly and severally, monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $660.51, within 20 days. (Id.)

As of the filing of the instant motion, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has failed to provide any pertinent discovery responses or tender the awarded monetary sanctions, despite the Court’s August 11, 2022 order. (Motion at pg. 4; Lee Decl. ¶ 11.) Based on this failure, Defendant argues that terminating sanctions are warranted because Plaintiff has had ample time to provide Code compliant response and willfully violated the Court’s August 11, 2022 order. (Motion at pp. 6-7.) Moreover, Defendant argues that, without responses to these discovery requests, he lacks the ability to meaningfully evaluate Plaintiff’s case. (Motion at pg. 7.) Defendant further asserts that the Court should not turn a blind eye to Plaintiff’s repeated misuse of the discovery process. (Motion at pg. 8.)

Under the circumstances, the Court finds that terminating sanctions are not appropriate for the following reasons. First, while Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition, Defendant has not shown that Plaintiff’s failure to respond to discovery is willful. (See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 787 [“Lack of diligence may be deemed willful in the sense that the party understood his obligation, had the ability to comply, and failed to comply.”])

Second, the only harm that Defendant has suffered by Plaintiff’s violation of the August 11, 2022 order is a delay in discovery. Because trial is currently scheduled for May 16, 2023 and this date can easily be continued, there is sufficient time for Defendant to acquire the necessary evidence to defendant against this case. Thus, granting Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions would only act as a punishment against Plaintiff. (Doppes, supra, 174 Cal. App. 4th at 992.) Instead, if Plaintiff continues to refuse to provide discovery responses that comply with the Court’s prior order, evidentiary sanctions would be a more tailored result. (See Parker, supra, 149 Cal. App. 4th at 301.) However, this request is not before the Court, and it would be premature to consider at this time.

Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions without prejudice.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

        Dated this 20th day of January 2023