Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV29648, Date: 2023-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29648    Hearing Date: February 5, 2024    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.       INTRODUCTION

On September 12, 2022, Plaintiff Donyea Richardson (“Plaintiff”) filed this premises liability action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation (“Metro”), City of Los Angeles, and County of Los Angeles.

Defendant Metro now moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order of October 12, 2023, which ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objections, to the written discovery within thirty (30) days. The motion is unopposed.

II.      LEGAL STANDARD

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., §§ 2031.300; 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. Superior Court for Los Angeles 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. Superior Court of Los Angeles 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.  (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 788; Cornwall v. Santa Monica Dairy Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 250; Evid. Code, §§ 500, 605.) 

III.     DISCUSSION

          Plaintiff filed no opposition to this motion and it is undisputed she failed to respond to discovery and disobeyed a Court Order to do so. Defendant Metro served a Notice of Ruling on Plaintiff. (Sheppard Decl., ¶8, Exh. C.) Therefore, the Court concludes Plaintiff knew of the discovery obligations, knew of the Court Order compelling compliance, and has wilfully failed to comply with the Court’s order.  Given Plaintiff’s failures to comply with discovery obligations, failures to meet and confer with defense counsel, and apparent disinterest in prosecuting this action, the Court finds lesser sanctions would not curb the abuse.

Accordingly, the motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s action is hereby dismissed with prejudice as to Defendant Metro. 

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.

                                                                   Dated this 5th day of February 2024