Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV34485, Date: 2023-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34485    Hearing Date: December 12, 2023    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On September 17, 2021, Plaintiff Alexander Lockett (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”), City of Los Angele (“City”), County of Los Angeles (“County”), California Department of Transportation, and Does 1-50 for premises liability—dangerous condition of public property. 

On September 9, 2022, the County filed an answer. On January 4, 2023, the Court dismissed the County without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

On September 14, 2022, The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation, erroneously sued as “California Department of Transportation, a public entity,” filed an answer.  On October 31, 2022, the Court dismissed the California Department of Transportation without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

On September 16, 2022, the Court dismissed the City without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request. 

On September 26, 2022, LACMTA filed an answer. 

On May 30, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel. 

On November 9, 2023, LACMTA filed a motion for terminating sanctions to be heard on December 12, 2023.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 

The trial is currently set for March 27, 2024. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

LACMTA requests that the Court issue terminating sanctions against 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. 

* * * 

“(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 September 26, 2023, the Court granted LACMTA’s motion to compel responses to request for production and identification of documents 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 October 20, 2023. The Court also granted LACMTA’s motions to compel responses to form and special interrogatories and ordered Plaintiff to provide verified code-compliant responses to the interrogatories without objections by October 20, 2023.  The Court ordered Plaintiff to pay $980 in monetary sanctions to LACMTA by October 20, 2023. 

Plaintiff has not provided the discovery responses or paid the sanctions specified in the Court’s September 26, 2023 order. 

The Court grants LACMTA’s motion, imposes terminating sanctions, and dismisses the case. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s motion for terminating sanctions.  The Court dismisses the complaint filed by Plaintiff Alexander Lockett with prejudice under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (d)(3). 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.