Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV08813, Date: 2023-06-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV08813 Hearing Date: January 19, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On March 11, 2022, Plaintiff Michael Gjona (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Laboratory Corporation of America (“Defendant”), John Doe, and Does 1-25 for negligence and premises liability.
On August 18, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.
On June 29, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel.
On November 6, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with Court order, to be heard on January 19, 2024.
The trial is currently set for July 25, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Defendant requests that the Court dismiss the case.
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:
* * *
“(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 October 2, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s unopposed motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to requests for production, form interrogatories, and requests for admission and ordered Plaintiff to provide verified code-compliant responses without objections and pay Defendant monetary sanctions by November 1, 2023.
Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s October 2, 2023 order. The Court finds that, in light of Plaintiff’s failure respond to Defendant's discovery requests and failure to comply with the Court's October 2, 2023 order, no lesser sanction than dismissal would result in Plaintiff complying with his discovery obligations. The Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Laboratory Corporation of America’s motion and DISMISSES Plaintiff Michael Gjona's action against Defendant Laboratory Corporation of America with prejudice under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (d)(3).
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.