Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 20STLC08034, Date: 2023-10-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STLC08034 Hearing Date: October 4, 2023 Dept: 25
Garnett vs. Brazile
Defendant's Motion for Terminating Sanctions
BACKGROUND
On September 23, 2020, Plaintiff Carlos Garnett (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants Lauren Alicia Brazile and Paula Beauchamp-Brazile (collectively “Defendants”) for motor vehicle and general negligence arising from an automobile collision in November 2018.
On August 15, 2023, Defendants filed the instant Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions. No opposition has been filed as of September 29, 2023.
ANALYSIS
I. Legal Standard
Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 gives the court the discretion to impose sanctions against anyone engaging in a misuse of the discovery process. A court may impose terminating sanctions by striking pleadings of the party engaged in misuse of discovery or entering default judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) A violation of a discovery order is sufficient for the imposition of terminating sanctions. (Collison & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1620.) Terminating sanctions are appropriate when a party persists in disobeying the court's orders. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 795–96.)
A terminating sanction is a "drastic measure which should be employed with caution." (Id. at p. 793.) "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 Ca1.App.4th 262, 279–80.)
While the court has discretion to impose terminating sanctions, these 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." (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 793.) "[A] court is empowered to apply the ultimate sanction against a litigant who persists in the outright refusal to comply with his discovery obligations." (Id.) Discovery sanctions are not to be imposed for punishment, but instead are used to encourage fair disclosure of discovery to prevent unfairness resulting for the lack of information. (See Midwife v. Bernal (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 57, 64 [superseded on other grounds as stated in Kohan v. Cohan (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 967, 971.)
"A trial court has broad discretion to impose discovery sanctions, but two facts are generally prerequisite to the imposition of nonmonetary sanctions . . . (1) absent unusual circumstances, there must be a failure to comply with a court order, and (2) the failure must be willful." (Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327; but see Reedy v. Bussell (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1291 ["willfulness is no longer a requirement for the imposition of discovery sanctions."].)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 provides that “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction 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.” A misuse of the discovery process “include[s] . . . [d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery.” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc., supra, 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991.) Further, a court shall impose a two hundred- and fifty-dollar ($250) sanction, payable to the requesting party, upon a party, person, or attorney if, upon reviewing a request for a sanction, the court finds “[t]he party, person, or attorney did not respond in good faith to a request for the production of documents made pursuant to Section […] 2025.210 […]” or “failed to confer […] with the party or attorney requesting the documents in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning the request.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.050, subds. (a)(1), (a)(3).)
II. Discussion
Defendants request the Court impose a terminating sanction issuing an order striking out
Plaintiff’s Complaint and an order dismissing Plaintiff’s action because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order of April 11, 2023. (Motion, p. 9:8-21.) Defendants also request monetary sanctions in the total amount of $2,240.00 against Plaintiff and its counsel of record Yoon S. Kim, of THE BARNES FIRM, L.C. ($1,740.00 for attorney fees and costs for 10.5 hour incurred in bringing this motion at the hourly rate of $160.00 plus filing fee of $60.00, and the $250.00 sanction provided for in Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.050, subdivision (a) for each Defendant). (Motion, p. 11:3-14; Declaration of Claudia E. Murga (“Murga Decl.”), ¶ 7.)
Per the April 11, 2023, Minute Order, Plaintiff was to serve verified responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production, Set One, within ten (10) days. The Motion to deem admitted the Requests for Admissions, Set One, was granted. Plaintiff’s Counsel was ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $820.00 within ten (10) days. (Murga Decl, ¶ 4.) Defendants electronically served a Notice of Ruling regarding the Motions to Compel heard on April 11, 2023, on April 13, 2023. (Murga Decl., ¶ 5; Ex. “A.”) As of August 13, 2023, Plaintiff and his Counsel have failed to serve verified responses and pay sanctions to Defendants. (Murga Decl., ¶ 6.)
Plaintiff did not oppose the motions to compel, nor has Plaintiff opposed this Motion, which could end the case. The Court has no evidence before it that indicates Plaintiff complied with the Court’s order or that any sanction would result in Plaintiff serving responses to Defendants’ discovery requests; rather, Plaintiff appears to have abandoned the case.
Based on the foregoing, the Court grants the Motion. The Court also grants the request for sanctions in the reduced total amount of $1,760.00 ($1,260 for attorney fees and costs for 7.5 hours incurred in bringing this motion at the hourly rate of $160.00 plus filing fee of $60.00, and the $250.00 sanction provided for in Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.050, subdivision (a) for each Defendant).
III. Conclusion
Defendants Lauren Alicia Brazile and Paula Beauchamp-Brazile’s motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED. This Action is Dismissed with prejudice.
The Trial set for 12/08/2023 is advanced and vacated.
The Court GRANTS Defendants’ request for sanctions for attorney's fees and costs in the reduced amount of $1,260.00.
The Court also GRANTS Defendants’ request for the $250.00 sanction provided for in Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.050, subdivision (a) for each Defendant.
Plaintiff and its counsel of record, Yoon S. Kim, of THE BARNES FIRM, L.C., are ORDERED to pay monetary sanctions in the total amount of $1,760.00 to Defendants within 30 days of the date of this order.
Moving Party is ordered to give notice.