Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 24STCV00101, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV00101 Hearing Date: November 12, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Prior proceedings
On January 3, 2024, Plaintiff Daveon Marnell St. Julian (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants 7-Eleven, Inc. (“7-Eleven”), Megdal Century, LLC (“Megdal Century”), Veronica Miranda Perez (“Perez”), Javier Martinez (“Martinez”), and Does 1-100 for motor vehicle tort, general negligence, premises liability, and negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle.
On January 26, 2024, 7-Eleven filed an answer. On April 18, 2024, Megdal Century filed an answer. On May 2, 2024, Perez and Martinez filed an answer.
On April 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney form substituting himself as a self-represented litigant in place of his former attorney.
On October 21, 2024, the Court granted 7-Eleven’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to form interrogatories 2.8 and 2.13 and ordered Plaintiff to serve further verified code-compliant responses to form interrogatories 2.8 and 2.13 by November 21, 2024.
Trial is currently scheduled for July 2, 2025.
B. This motion
On September 19, 2024, 7-Eleven filed a motion for terminating sanctions. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.
PARTY’S REQUEST
7-Eleven asks the Court to impose terminating sanctions on Plaintiff.
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.
“(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. 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
On August 9, 2024, the Court granted 7-Eleven’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories, set two, and ordered Plaintiff to serve verified, code-compliant responses to the special interrogatories without objections by September 9, 2024.
Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s August 9, 2024 order. 7-Eleven now asks the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s action as a sanction for failing to comply with the order. According to 7-Eleven, Plaintiff has abandoned his case.
The Court denies 7-Eleven’s request for terminating sanctions. Plaintiff has violated one discovery order. 7-Eleven has not shown that less severe sanctions would be ineffective in producing compliance with the discovery rules. (See Mileikowsky, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at pp. 279-280.)
Instead, the Court orders Plaintiff to comply with the Court’s August 9, 2024 order by December 12, 2024.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc.’s motion for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff Daveon Marnell St. Julian.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Daveon Marnell St. Julian to serve verified, code-compliant responses to Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc.’s special interrogatories, set two, without objections by December 12, 2024.
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.