Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV18512, Date: 2024-08-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV18512 Hearing Date: August 12, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On June 6, 2022, Plaintiffs Irene Lomeli, Jaleen Jones, and Angel Alston (“Alston”) filed this action against Defendants Ricardo Menola Garcia, Activ Enterprises, LLC (“Activ”), and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On October 18, 2022, Activ filed an answer.
On February 2, 2023, Defendant Ricardo Mendiola Garcia (erroneously sued and served as Ricardo Menola Garcia) (“Garcia”) filed an answer.
On May 17, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as Alston’s counsel.
On January 26, 2024, the Court dismissed the claims of Plaintiffs Irene Lomeli and Jaleen Jones with prejudice at their request.
On July 8, 2024, Activ and Garcia (“Defendants”) filed a motion for terminating sanctions against Alson, to be heard on August 12, 2024. Alson has not filed an opposition.
Trial is currently scheduled for September 26, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Defendants ask the Court to impose terminating sanctions on Alston.
LEGAL STANDARD
A. Monetary, issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions
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.
“(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.
“(e) The court may impose a contempt sanction by an order treating the misuse of the discovery process as a contempt of court.
“(f) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), or any other section of this title, absent exceptional circumstances, the court shall not impose sanctions on a party or any attorney of a party for failure to provide electronically stored information that has been lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten as the result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system.
“(2) This subdivision shall not be construed to alter any obligation to preserve discoverable information.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.)
B. Sanctions for failure to comply with Court order compelling response to demand for inspection
Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (c), provides in part:
“If a party . . . fails to obey [an] order [under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (b)] compelling a response [to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling], the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)
C. Sanctions for failure to comply with Court order compelling response to interrogatories
Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (c), provides in part:
“If a party then fails to obey an order [under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, subdivision (b)] compelling answers [to interrogatories], the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)
D. Terminating sanctions for failure to comply with discovery orders
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 March 19, 2024, the Court (1) granted Activ’s motions to compel Alston’s responses to requests for production of documents, set two, and ordered Alston to serve verified code-compliant responses, without objections, and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by April 18, 2024, (2) granted Activ’s motion to compel Alston’s responses to special interrogatories, set two, and ordered Alston to serve verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by April 18, 2024, (3) granted Activ’s motion to compel Alston’s responses to form interrogatories, set two, and ordered Alston to serve verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by April 18, 2024, and (4) granted Activ’s motion to compel Alston’s responses to requests for admission, set two, and ordered Alston to serve verified code-compliant responses to the requests for admission without objections by April 18, 2024.
Alston failed to comply with the Court’s March 19, 2024 order. On June 6, 2024, in response to Activ’s initial motion for terminating sanctions, the Court reinstated the March 19, 2024 order and ordered Alston to comply with the March 19, 2024 order by July 6, 2024. The Court also imposed monetary sanctions on Alston.
Defendants have moved again for terminating sanctions, asserting that Alston has not complied with the June 6, 2024 or March 19, 2024 orders.
The proof of service attached to Defendants’ motion states that Defendants electronically served their motion on Alston. Under California Rules of Court, rule 2.251(c)(3)(B), self-represented parties “are to be served by non-electronic methods unless they affirmatively consent to electronic service.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(c)(3)(B); see Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (c).)
The Court has not seen any evidence that Alston consented to receive electronic service after the Court relieved his former attorney. Therefore, the Court denies the motion without prejudice due to lack of proper service.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES without prejudice the motion for terminating sanctions filed by Defendants Ricardo Mendiola Garcia (erroneously sued and served as Ricardo Menola Garcia) and Activ Enterprises, LLC.
Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving parties are ordered to file proof of service of this ruling within five days.