Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV20180, Date: 2025-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20180    Hearing Date: February 26, 2025    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On June 21, 2022, Plaintiff Andrew Leeka (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) and Does 1-50 for premises liability. 

On August 31, 2022, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. 

On September 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney form substituting himself as a self-represented litigant in place of his former attorney. 

On December 19, 2023, Defendant filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross- Defendants Roes 1-20 for apportionment of fault, indemnification, and declaratory relief. 

On April 25, 2024, the Court (1) granted Defendant’s motion to compel responses to Defendant’s demand for inspection and production of documents, set one, and ordered Plaintiff to provide verified code-compliant responses without objections and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by May 24, 2024, (2) granted Defendant’s motion to compel responses to special interrogatories, set one, and ordered Plaintiff to provide verified code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by May 24, 2024, and (3) granted Defendant’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one, and ordered Plaintiff to provide verified code-compliant responses to the form interrogatories without objections by May 24, 2024. 

On July 11, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for terminating sanctions based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s April 25, 2024 order.  The motion was set for hearing on August 23, 2024.  Plaintiff did not file an opposition.  On August 23, 2024, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions but ordered Plaintiff to comply with the Court’s April 25, 2024 order by September 23, 2024. 

On November 27, 2024, Defendant filed another motion for terminating sanctions.  The motion was set for hearing on January 9, 2025.  Plaintiff did not file an opposition.  The Court continued the hearing to February 26, 2025. 

Trial is currently set for June 4, 2025. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Defendant asks the Court to impose terminating sanctions on Plaintiff and dismiss the action. 

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. 

“(b) The court may impose an issue sanction ordering that designated facts shall be taken as established in the action in accordance with the claim of the party adversely affected by the misuse of the discovery process. The court may also impose an issue sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses. 

“(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 to respond 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 to respond 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 may support the imposition of terminating sanctions. (See 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 (“Mileikowsky”).)  

DISCUSSION 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s April 25, 2024 and August 23, 2024 orders compelling Plaintiff’s to provide discovery responses.  Plaintiff has not shown that he complied with either order. 

The Court finds that terminating sanctions are appropriate because less severe sanctions would not result in Plaintiff’s compliance with the discovery rules.  (See Mileikowsky, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at pp. 279-280.)  The Court grants the motion and dismisses the case. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Defendant City of Los Angeles’s motion for terminating sanctions and dismisses Plaintiff Andrew Leeka’s action under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (d)(3). 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving party is ordered to file proof of service of this ruling within five days.