Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV02098, Date: 2024-08-01 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: August 1, 2024

Case Name: Krouch, et al. v. PR2020, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 21STLC06411

Matter: Motion for Sanctions

Moving Party: Defendant PR2020, LLC

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted in part.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

On May 2, 2023, a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) was filed relating to the failure to pay attorneys’ fees after losing an unlawful detainer action and to repair property pursuant to commercial leases.  

On June 23, 2023, a Cross-Complaint was filed relating to the failure to pay rent.

On April 5, 2024, the Court granted Defendant PR2020, LLC’s three motions to compel responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests of production from Plaintiff Robert Gooch.  The Court required responses within 30 days. 

Defendant now seeks terminating, issue, evidentiary, and/or monetary sanctions because Gooch failed to comply with the Court’s April 5, 2024, ruling.

“California discovery law authorizes a range of penalties for conduct amounting to ‘misuse of the discovery process.’ ” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991.)  Misuses of the discovery process include “[u]sing a discovery method in a manner that does not comply with its specified procedures” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(b)); “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery” (id., subd. (d)); “[m]aking an evasive response to discovery” (id., subd. (f)); and “[d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery” (id., subd. (g).)

Code Civ. Proc. § 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.”  In selecting the appropriate sanction, a trial court “should consider both the conduct being sanctioned and its effect on the party seeking discovery,” and should tailor the sanction to fit the harm caused by the abuse of the discovery process.  (Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 992.)  “The trial court cannot impose sanctions for misuse of the discovery process as a punishment.”  (Ibid.)

A terminating sanction “is a proper sanction to punish the failure to comply with a rule or an order only if the court’s authority cannot be vindicated through the imposition of a less severe alternative.”  (Rail Services of America v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 323, 331 [concerning dismissal for a plaintiffs’ refusal to comply with discovery]; see also Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-80 [“[W]here 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.”].)

Plaintiff Gooch did not file an opposition such that it seems that Gooch is not interested in participating in discovery.  Therefore, the Court will enter a terminating sanction by striking Gooch’s SAC, striking his Answer to the Cross-Complaint, and entering his default.  The Court will not award any other sanctions.

The Motion is granted in part as set forth herein.  

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.