Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00630, Date: 2023-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00630    Hearing Date: March 20, 2024    Dept: C

STARNET INSURANCE COMPANY v. MICHAEL ESQUIBEL

CASE NO.:  22NWCV00630

HEARING: 3/20/24 @ 9:30 AM

#3

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Starnet Insurance Company’s motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED.  Defendant Michael Esquibel’s Answer is stricken. 

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

This motion is unopposed as of March 18, 2024.

This is a complaint about failure to pay insurance premiums. Plaintiff Starnet Insurance Company moves to strike the answer of Defendant Michael Esquibel.

Legal Standard

“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.) 

“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.)  

“Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders.” (Los Defensores, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390.) The court may impose a terminating sanction by an order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d)(1).)

Terminating Sanctions

Plaintiff argues that the Court may grant terminating sanctions because Defendant failed to obey the Court’s order compelling discovery responses.

On August 8, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motions to compel Defendant’s responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Form Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff’s counsel testifies that Defendant has not responded to discovery to date. (Gaba Decl., ¶ 6.)

The Court may grant Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss because the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules. Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests were originally due in November 2022. Defendant has now delayed responding to Plaintiff’s discovery requests for more than one year. Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s request, did not oppose the March 2023 discovery motions, and did not oppose this motion. It appears Defendant is no longer interested in litigating this matter.

Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED.  Defendant Michael Esquibel’s Answer is stricken.