Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV03729, Date: 2023-10-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV03729    Hearing Date: December 21, 2023    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On January 29, 2021, Plaintiff Quiwaneca Spikes (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”) and Does 1-25 for motor vehicle negligence, public entity liability based on government employee’s conduct in the course and scope of employment under Government Code sections 820.2 through 823, public entity liability based on the torts of government employees and/or government contractors under Government Code sections 815.2 and 815.4 and Vehicle Code section 17001. 

On July 15, 2021, Defendant filed an answer. 

On December 19, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories (set two) and ordered Plaintiff to serve code- compliant discovery responses within 30 days.  On January 19, 2023, Defendant’s counsel informed the Court that he had received verified responses to discovery. 

On June 6, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motions (1) to compel Plaintiff’s supplemental responses to a demand for identification and production, (2) to compel Plaintiff’s supplemental answers to form interrogatories, and (3) to compel Plaintiff’s supplemental answers to special interrogatories.  The Court ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses without objection to the supplemental discovery requests within twenty days of notice of the order. 

On June 30, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories (set two).  The Court ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objections, to the special interrogatories in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.210, subdivision (a) and 2030.220 by July 20, 2023. 

On October 9, 2023, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions because Defendant filed the motion before the July 20, 2023 deadline for Plaintiff to comply with the Court’s June 30, 2023 order.  

On November 17, 2023, Defendant filed a motion for issue, evidentiary, or terminating sanctions based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders to provide discovery responses.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 

On December 8, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories (sets two and three) and ordered Plaintiff to provide verified, code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by January 7, 2024. 

Trial is currently scheduled for January 11, 2024. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

LACMTA requests that the Court impose issue, evidentiary, or terminating sanctions on Plaintiff. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 provides in part: 

“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. 

“(b) The court may impose an issue sanction ordering that designated facts shall be taken as established in the action in accordance with the claim of the party adversely affected by the misuse of the discovery process. The court may also impose an issue sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses. 

“(c) The court may impose an evidence sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from introducing designated matters in evidence. 

“(d) The court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders: 

“(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), (b), (c), (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 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020 provides: 

“(a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action. 

“(b) Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, emphasis added; see also L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 8:445, p. 8E-10 (Cal. Practice Guide) [“Unless otherwise ordered: [¶] Discovery proceedings must be ‘completed’ 30 days before the date initially set for trial [citation]; and [¶] Discovery motions must be heard no later than 15 days before the date initially set for trial”].)^[1]

Here, trial was initially scheduled to begin on July 29, 2022.  On June 14, 2022, the parties stipulated to continue the trial to May 17, 2023 and stipulated that all discovery and motion cut-off dates would be based on the new trial date.  On April 19, 2023, on Defendant’s motion, the Court continued the trial to November 3, 2023, and ruled that all discovery and related dates would be based on the new trial date. 

On October 12, 2023, the Court granted in part Defendant’s ex parte application and continued the trial to January 11, 2024.  The Court denied without prejudice Defendant’s request to continue or reopen discovery.  Defendant did not subsequently file a motion to reopen discovery. 

Therefore, the discovery and motion cut-off dates remain tied to the previous November 3, 2023 trial date.  The last day to conduct non-expert discovery was October 4, 2023.  The last day for the Court to hear a motion concerning non-expert discovery was October 19, 2023. 

Defendant’s motion for issue, evidentiary, or terminating sanctions is a “motion concerning discovery” under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020, subdivision (b).  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subds. (a), (b), (c), (d) [authorizing sanctions for misuse of the discovery process].)  Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020, subdivision (a), the last day for the Court to hear the motion was October 19, 2023.  Nonetheless, Defendant filed the motion on November 17, 2023 with a hearing date of December 21, 2023.  The Court denies the motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES without prejudice Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s motion for issue, evidentiary, or terminating sanctions. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.