Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 19STCV17414, Date: 2023-11-21 Tentative Ruling
All parties are
urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to
see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If
you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in
advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather
than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include
the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject
line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the
hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and
whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant,
cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be
advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the
hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the
matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the
argument. 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 you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT
WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to
argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent
authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative
ruling as the order of the court.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of
your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request
the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the
hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 19STCV17414 Hearing Date: December 1, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On May 20, 2019, Plaintiff Rosa Ayala (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Joey Richard Alvarado (“Alvarado”), Trinity Worldwide Reprographics, Inc., Trinity Graphics, Inc., and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle negligence.
On August 18, 2021, Alvarado filed an answer. On November 15, 2022, Alvarado filed an amended answer.
On November 12, 2021, the Court dismissed Trinity Worldwide Reprographics, Inc. without prejudice. On May 18, 2022, the Court set aside the dismissal.
On January 23, 2023, the Court granted the motion of Defendants Alvarado and Trinity Worldwide Reprographics, Inc. (“Moving Defendants”) to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Moving Defendants’ request for production (set one) and ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections within thirty days. The Court also granted Moving Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories (set one) and special interrogatories (set one) and ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses to the interrogatories without objections within thirty days. The Court granted Moving Defendants’ request for sanctions and ordered Plaintiff and her counsel to pay Moving Defendants $706.50 by February 22, 2023.
On June 23, 2023, the Court denied Moving Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions. The Court granted Moving Defendants’ motion to compel responses to form interrogatories (set two) and ordered Plaintiff to provide verified, code-compliant responses within 30 days. The Court ordered Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions to Moving Defendants within 30 days.
On October 31, 2023, Moving Defendants filed a “motion for reconsideration” of the Court’s June 23, 2023 order denying their motion for terminating sanctions. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.
Trial is currently scheduled for January 30, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUEST
Moving
Defendants ask the Court to impose terminating and monetary sanctions on Plaintiff.
|
LEGAL STANDARD “To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose the following sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process: “(a) The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. *
* * “(1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process. “(2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed. “(3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party. “(4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subds. (a), (d).) A violation of a discovery order supports 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 (Deyo).) A terminating sanction is a "drastic measure which should be employed with caution." (Deyo, supra, 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.) DISCUSSION |
Moving Defendants assert that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s January 23, 2023 and June 23, 2023 orders to provide verified code-compliant responses, without objections, to the discovery Moving Defendants have served and to pay sanctions. Plaintiff has not filed a response disputing Moving Defendants’ assertion.
The Court denied Moving Defendants’ previous motion for terminating sanctions because Plaintiff had provided discovery responses, albeit belatedly, and the parties could address deficiencies in the responses by means short of terminating sanctions. Now, however, Plaintiff has demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance with the Court’s orders.
The Court previously imposed monetary sanctions on Plaintiff but saw no change in Plaintiff’s efforts to comply with the Court’s orders. The Court now finds that a sanction less severe than terminating sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules. Therefore, the Court grants the motion for terminating sanctions.
Moving Defendants request monetary sanctions of $1,114.65 based on nine hours of attorney’s work at a rate of $117.00 per hour and one $61.65 filing fee. Counsel spent six hours drafting the motion and anticipated spending two hours to prepare a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition and one hour to attend the hearing. The motion was unopposed. The Court grants $529.65 in sanctions, based on four hours of attorney’s work and one filing fee.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the motion for terminating sanctions (titled “motion for reconsideration”) filed by Defendants Joey Richard Alvarado and Trinity Worldwide Reprographics, Inc. The Court dismisses the complaint filed by Plaintiff Rosa Ayala with prejudice under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (d)(3).
The Court GRANTS the request for monetary sanctions of Defendants Joey Richard Alvarado and Trinity Worldwide Reprographics, Inc. and orders Plaintiff Rosa Ayala and her counsel to pay Defendants Joey Richard Alvarado and Trinity Worldwide Reprographics, Inc. $529.65 within 30 days of the date of the hearing on the motion.
Moving
parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.