Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV16555, Date: 2025-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV16555    Hearing Date: January 10, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

On July 17, 2023, Plaintiff filed the present motor vehicle accident case. On March 11, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel was granted leave to withdraw.

On September 18, 2024, Defendant City of West Hollywood filed multiple motions to compel Plaintiff’s initial responses. On October 17, 2024, Defendant’s Requests for Admission, Set One, were deemed admitted, and Plaintiff was ordered to provide verified, objection-free responses to the Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production (all Set One) by November 6, 2024. Plaintiff was also ordered to pay $1,000.00 in sanctions to Defendant no later than November 16, 2024.

As of the filing of this motion on December 2, 2024, Plaintiff has failed to responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production (all Set One). Additionally, Plaintiff has not paid any portion of the $1,000.00 in sanctions owed to the City. Defendant now moves the Court for terminating sanctions.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030 gives the court the discretion to impose sanctions against anyone engaging in a misuse of the discovery process. 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 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, 795-796.) 

The court should consider the totality of the circumstances, including 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 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, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 787.) 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.) 

A terminating sanction is a “drastic measure which should be employed with caution.” (Deyo, 84 Cal.App.3d 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 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280.) 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, 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.” (Ibid.)

Discussion

After Plaintiff’s counsel was relieved in March 2024, Plaintiff has not made any filings with the court. Plaintiff did not oppose the City’s motions filed on September 18, 2024, nor did Plaintiff appear at the hearing. In fact, both the City and the County filed numerous motions in July and September, none of which were opposed, and Plaintiff failed to appear at any of these hearings. Furthermore, Plaintiff did not oppose the present motion for terminating sanctions. 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.) Plaintiff has made any filing meeting this burden. It also appears to the Court that Plaintiff has abandoned her case, and no lesser sanction would be effective in compelling Plaintiff to fulfill her discovery obligations. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

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’s 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. 

__________________________ 

Hon. Lee S. Arian  

Judge of the Superior Court