Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV20958, Date: 2023-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20958    Hearing Date: September 6, 2023    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On June 28, 2022, Plaintiff John Michael Mercado (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants RJM Management, Muhlestein Family Trust, Ralph Muhlestein, and Jeanne Muhlestein. Plaintiff alleged claims of general negligence and premises liability arising from a slip and fall accident that occurred on May 10, 2022. 

On July 26, 2022, Defendants filed an answer. 

On June 5, 2023, the Court granted Defendants' motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and ordered Plaintiff to appear for a video deposition on June 29, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., or at another mutually agreeable date.  The Court also ordered Plaintiff to pay sanctions to Defendants. 

On July 13, 2023, Defendants filed a motion for terminating sanctions to be heard on September 6, 2023.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 

Trial is currently scheduled for December 26, 2023. 

PARTIES’ REQUEST 

Defendants request that the court impose terminating sanctions against Plaintiff and award $349.15 in monetary sanctions.

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. 

“(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.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subds. (a), (b), (c), (d).) 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (h), provides that if a party fails to obey an order granting a motion to compel attendance at a deposition, “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) against that party deponent or against the party with whom the deponent is affiliated."  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (h).)  "In lieu of, or in addition to, this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against that deponent or against the party with whom that party deponent is affiliated, and in favor of any party who, in person or by attorney, attended in the expectation that the deponent’s testimony would be taken pursuant to that order.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (h).)

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 June 5, 2023, the Court granted Defendants' motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and ordered Plaintiff to appear for a video deposition on June 29, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., or at another mutually agreeable date.  Plaintiff failed to appear for this deposition and did not communicate with Defendants to set a different, mutually agreeable date. 

The Court grants the motion for terminating sanctions because the Court does not believe that a less severe sanction would produce compliance with the discovery rules. 

Defendants request monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, subdivision (c), 2031.300, subdivision (c), and 2023.010, subdivision (g), of $349.15, based on 2 hours of attorney’s work at a rate of $143.75 per hour and 1 $61.65 filling fee. The request is reasonable and the Court grants it. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendants RJM Management, Muhlestein Family Trust, Ralph Muhlestein and Jeanne Muhlestein for terminating sanctions. 

The Court dismisses Plaintiff John Michael Mercado’s complaint with prejudice under Code of Civil Procedure section 1023.030, subdivision (b)(3). 

The Court GRANTS the request of Defendants RJM Management, Muhlestein Family Trust, Ralph Muhlestein and Jeanne Muhlestein for sanctions and orders Plaintiff to pay $349.15 in sanctions to Defendants within 30 days of the hearing on the motion. 

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.