Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 19STCV42431, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV42431    Hearing Date: January 10, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.                   INTRODUCTION

On November 26, 2019, plaintiff Richard Harris (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action against defendants Park La Brea LLC and Universal Protection Service LP (erroneously sued as “Allied Universal”).

On February 14, 2023, Defendant Universal Protection Service LP (hereinafter “Defendant”) filed various motions to compel verified responses to Set One of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents from Plaintiff. On October 27, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel and ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses without objections to these discovery requests by November 13, 2023.

Now, Defendant has filed the instant motion for terminating sanctions based on Plaintiff’s failure to abide by the Court’s October 27, 2023 Order. No opposition has been filed.

II.                LEGAL STANDARD

If a party fails to comply with a court order compelling a response to interrogatories or a request for production, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)  California Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030 provides that, “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method . . . , the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose . . . [monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating] sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process . . . .”  California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 provides that “[m]issues of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: . . . (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. . . . (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery . . . .” 

The purpose of terminating sanctions is to ensure compliance with the discovery statutes and orders of the court; they are not intended to be punitive in nature.  (Welgoss v. End (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 982, 992; Rail Services of America v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 323, 331-332.)  Discovery sanctions are not a tool for litigating factual issues, and a motion for a discovery sanction is not a means of adjudicating the merits of a cause of action. Compliance with the discovery statutes is the goal, and to that end any discovery sanction issued by the court should be tailored to any noncompliant conduct.  (See Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 531, 564; New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1423-1426; Lopez v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604-605.)

III.             DISCUSSION

Here, Defendant moves for terminating sanctions based on Plaintiff’s willful failure to comply with the Court’s October 27, 2023 Order. (Motion at pg. 7; Johnson Decl. ¶ 11-12, Exh. D.)

“The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse ‘after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.’”  (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390 (quoting Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246).)  “Generally, ‘[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.’”  (Los Defensores, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390 (citation omitted).) 

“Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders.”  (Ibid. (citing Lang, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1244-1246); see, e.g., Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622 (terminating sanctions imposed after defendants failed to comply with one court order to produce discovery); Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 491 (disapproved on other grounds in Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 478, n. 4) (terminating sanctions imposed against plaintiff for failing to comply with a discovery order and for violating various discovery statutes).) 

Under the circumstances, the Court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted. Defendant has repeatedly attempted to procure discovery responses from Plaintiff to no avail. Even after being ordered by the Court to provide code-compliant discovery responses and having received notice of the order, Plaintiff has continued to disregard his discovery obligations. (See Johnson Decl. ¶¶ 11-12, Exh. D.) It is also noted that Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition to explain why he has been unable to comply with the Court’s October 27, 2023 order. Thus, because of Plaintiff’s lack of diligence, the Court finds that Plaintiff has engaged in conduct that constitutes a misuse of the discovery process by disobeying the Court’s October 27, 2023 order to serve verified discovery responses without objections. (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.”])

Moreover, considering trial is set for May 21, 2024 and the trial date has been continued twice before, Defendant has been prejudiced by not receiving discovery in this action that would be vital for its defense. Therefore, because Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant’s written discovery requests in spite of a court order, and, further, Plaintiff has not opposed the terminating sanctions request, the Court finds that lesser sanctions would not curb this abuse, and as a result, terminating sanctions are appropriate. (Jerry's Shell v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1058, 1069.)

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

IV.             CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Universal Protection Service LP’s Motion for Terminating Sanction is GRANTED. Consequently, the Court dismisses the action as it pertains to Defendant Universal Protection Service LP only.

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 10th day of January 2024