Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV20860, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20860    Hearing Date: January 10, 2024    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On June 3, 2021, Plaintiff Gerardo Becerra (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Cesar Hernandez (“Defendant”) and Does 1-10 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. 

On September 20, 2022, Defendant filed an answer. 

On April 17, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel.  On April 21, 2023, Plaintiff's counsel served the order relieving counsel on Plaintiff. 

On November 17, 2023, Defendant filed a motion for terminating sanctions or, in the alternative, monetary sanctions.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 

Trial is set for February 26, 2024. 

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. 

                                                            * * * 

          “(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), (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 

          On August 11, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form interrogatories, set one, and ordered Plaintiff to provide verified code-compliant responses to the interrogatories without objections by September 11, 2023.  On August 14, 2023, Defendant served notice of the ruling on Plaintiff. 

On November 16, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and ordered Plaintiff to provide verified code-compliant responses to the interrogatories without objections by December 18, 2023.  On November 16, 2023, Defendant served notice of the ruling on Plaintiff. 

On December 19, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to demand for inspection and production of documents, set one, and ordered Plaintiff to provide verified code-compliant responses and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by January 18, 2024. 

Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s August 11, 2023 order.  (Defendant filed the motion for terminating sanctions before the deadline for Plaintiff to comply with the November 16 and December 19, 2023 orders.)  The Court finds that no lesser sanction than dismissal would result in Plaintiff complying with his discovery obligations. The Court grants the motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS the motion for terminating sanctions of Defendant Cesar Hernandez.  The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s action with prejudice under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (d)(3). 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.