Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 21STCV24748, Date: 2023-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV24748    Hearing Date: December 14, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            Introduction

On July 6, 2021, plaintiff Ivan Mendez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Tessa Nicole Vaughn (“Defendant”) and Does 1-20 for injuries arising out a motor vehicle accident that occurred on July 15, 2019. 

On September 20, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses, without objection, to sets one of Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents within thirty (30) days.  A Notice of Ruling was served on Plaintiff.  However, to date, Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order.

II.          Legal Standards

Where a party fails to obey an order compelling answers to discovery, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.”  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2023.010, subd. (c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.)  The court may impose a terminating sanction against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).)  Misuse of the discovery process includes failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery or disobeying a court order to provide discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (g).)  A terminating sanction may be imposed by an order dismissing part or all of the action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d)(3).) 

The court should consider the totality of the circumstances, including conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful, the determent to the propounding party, and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain discovery.  (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.)  If a lesser sanction fails to curb abuse, a greater sanction is warranted.  (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.)  However, “the unsuccessful imposition of a lesser sanction is not an absolute prerequisite to the utilization of the ultimate sanction.”  (Deyo v. Killbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 787.)  Terminating sanctions should not be ordered lightly, but are justified where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and there is evidence that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules.  (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.)

Before any sanctions may be imposed, the court must make an express finding that there has been a willful failure of the party to serve the required answers.  (Fairfield v. Super. Ct. for L.A. County (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 113, 118.)  Lack of diligence may be deemed willful where the party understood its obligation, had the ability to comply, and failed to comply.  (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 787; Fred Howland Co. v. Super. Ct. of L.A. County (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 605, 610-611.)  The party who failed to comply with discovery obligations has the burden of showing that the failure was not willful.  (Evid. Code, §§ 500, 605; Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 788; Cornwall v. Santa Monica Dairy Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 250.)

III.        Discussion

Plaintiff filed no opposition to the instant motion, and it is undisputed he did not serve responses to discovery and disobeyed a court order to do so.  Defendant served a Notice of Ruling and the instant motion on Plaintiff.  Therefore, the Court concludes Plaintiff knew of his discovery obligations, knew of the Court Order compelling his compliance, and knew his case was at risk of being dismissed.  No basis exists for the Court to find that Plaintiff’s conduct was anything other than willful. Given Plaintiff’s prior failures to comply with discovery obligations and apparent disinterest in prosecuting this action, the Court finds lesser sanctions would not curb the abuse.

IV.         Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s action is hereby dismissed.

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 14th day of December 2023