Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV00356, Date: 2023-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00356, Date: 2023-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00356 Hearing Date: November 29, 2023 Dept: C

LEE, et al. v. GUARDIAN MANUFACTURING, INC., et al.

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00356

HEARING: 11/29/23 @ 9:30 AM

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. Defendants Wen Auguste Lee and Jin Gao’s Answers are ordered stricken.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Plaintiffs Sae Lee and Myung Hee Lee (Plaintiffs) move for terminating sanctions for failure to comply with a court order compelling Defendants Wen Auguste Lee and Jin Gao (collectively Defendants) to appear for deposition and produce documents. Plaintiffs also seek $2,040.00 in monetary sanctions.

Background

This is a breach of commercial lease action relating to Defendants and Defendant Guardian Manufacturing, Inc’s failure to pay rent. On January 17, 2023, Counsel for all Defendants filed a motion to be relieved as counsel because he was unable to contact his clients.

Legal Standard

If a party fails to comply with a court order compelling discovery responses or attendance at a deposition, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions. (CCP § 2025.450(h); § 2030.290(c); § 2031.300(c).) “To 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 ….” (CCP § 2030.030.) “Misuses 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 ….” (CCP § 2030.010.)

“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 390.)

Discussion

Here, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Depositions of Defendants and Requests for Production of Documents at time of hearing. Defendants failed to appear at the properly noticed depositions. This Court ordered Defendants to appear at their next noticed depositions and to pay $2,040.00 in sanctions within 30 days. Defendants have not responded to any attempts by Plaintiffs’ counsel to meet and confer regarding the depositions. (Clark Decl., Exs. B and C.) Further, Defendants did not oppose the Motion to Compel, appear at the hearing set on November 1, 2023, or appeared at this OSC. It appears to this Court that Defendants will not be compelled to participate in this action. Thus, the Court finds that terminating sanctions are appropriate as Defendants have shown a disregard for this Court’s order to comply with discovery and less severe sanctions have not produced compliance with the discovery rules. Therefore, Defendants Wen Auguste Lee and Jin Gao’s Answers are ordered stricken.

The Court declines to impose additional monetary sanctions as such sanctions would be simply to punish Defendants because terminating sanctions were granted.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. Defendants Wen Auguste Lee and Jin Gao’s Answers are ordered stricken.