Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV26195, Date: 2023-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26195    Hearing Date: January 10, 2024    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On August 12, 2022, Plaintiffs Martin Chavez and Jose Gonzalez (“Jose Gonzalez”) filed this action against Defendants Faustino Gonzalez (“Defendant”) and Does 1-100 for motor vehicle tort. 

On October 3, 2022, Defendant filed an answer. 

On October 20, 2023, Defendant filed a motion for terminating sanctions or in the alternative for monetary sanctions against Jose Gonzalez. 

Trial is set for February 9, 2024. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Defendant asks the Court to grant terminating sanctions or, in the alternative, monetary sanctions against Jose Gonzalez. 

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. 

                                                            * * * 

          “(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), (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 August 7, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel responses to form and special interrogatories and ordered Jose Gonzalez to provide verified code-compliant responses to the interrogatories without objections by September 11, 2023. The Court also granted Defendant’s motion to compel responses to the request for production and production of items and ordered Jose Gonzalez to provide verified code-compliant responses and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by September 11, 2023.  The Court based its rulings on Jose Gonzalez's failure to provide responses to Defendant's discovery requests.  Defendant gave notice of this order on March 24, 2023. 

Jose Gonzalez has not complied with the Court’s August 7, 2023 order. The Court finds that, in light of Jose Gonzalez's history of not responding to Defendant's discovery requests and failure to comply with the Court's August 7, 2023 order, no lesser sanction than dismissal would result in Jose Gonzalez complying with his discovery obligations. The Court grants the motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Defendant Faustino Gonzalez’s motion for terminating sanctions.  The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff Jose Gonzalez’s action with prejudice under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (d)(3). 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.