Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV04509, Date: 2023-07-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04509    Hearing Date: July 11, 2023    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On February 4, 2022, Plaintiff James Oballes (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Higinio Deharo Sotelo (“Sotelo”) and Pedro Deharo (“Deharo”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. 

On April 13, 2022, Defendants filed an answer. 

On June 8, 2023, Sotelo filed motions for terminating sanctions to be heard on July 11, 2023, and July 12, 2023.  Plaintiff has not filed a response. 

The trial is currently set for August 4, 2023. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Sotelo requests that the Court issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiff and impose sanctions of $61.65. 

LEGAL STANDARD

  Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 gives the court the discretion to impose sanctions against anyone engaging in a misuse of the discovery process. A court may impose terminating sanctions by striking pleadings of the party engaged in misuse of discovery or entering default judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (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.) While the court has discretion to impose terminating sanctions, these sanctions "should be appropriate to the dereliction and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery." (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 793.) "[A] court is empowered to apply the ultimate sanction against a litigant who persists in the outright refusal to comply with his discovery obligations." (Ibid.) 

DISCUSSION

  On January 19, 2023, the Court granted Sotelo’s unopposed motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and a request for production of documents.  Sotelo had served Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, and a Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One, on Plaintiff. Responses were due on October 17, 2022. Plaintiff failed to provide timely responses. 

The Court ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses to the form and special interrogatories in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.210, subdivision (a) and 2030.220 without objections by January 29, 2023. The Court ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses to the request for production and production of items and ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210 and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by January 29, 2023. 

To date, Plaintiff has not served discovery responses. The Court grants terminating sanctions because the Court does not believe that any less severe sanction would produce compliance with the discovery rules. 

The Court finds that an award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff is appropriate. Sotelo filed three separate requests for terminating sanctions, each based on a separate type of discovery. Only one motion was needed.  Sotelo therefore should have incurred only one filing fee.  Accordingly, the Court grants sanctions of $61.65 based on the filing fee for one motion. 

Having granted Sotelo’s motion for terminating sanctions, the Court advances, vacates, and places off calendar the hearing on Sotelo's separate motion for terminating sanctions scheduled for July 12, 2023. 

CONCLUSION 

Defendant Higinio Deharo Sotelo’s motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s complaint against Sotelo is dismissed with prejudice. 

Defendant Higinio Deharo Sotelo’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to pay $61.65 in sanctions to Sotelo within 30 days of the hearing on the motion. 

Defendant Higinio Deharo Sotelo’s motion for terminating sanctions scheduled for July 12, 2023, is vacated and placed off-calendar. 

Defendant Higinio Deharo Sotelo is ordered to give notice of this ruling.