Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV01036, Date: 2023-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV01036    Hearing Date: March 11, 2024    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  McKesson Medical Surgical, Inc. v. ‘Matias’ Clinical Laboratory, Inc., a California Corporation dba Health Care Providers Laboratory 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against ‘Matias’ Clinical Laboratory, Inc., a California Corporation dba Health Care Providers Laboratory 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions. The answer of Defendant ‘Matias’ Clinical Laboratory, Inc., a California Corporation dba Health Care Providers Laboratory, filed on July 6, 2023, is hereby STRICKEN. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for entry of judgment in its favor. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions and attorney’s fees. The Court will set a status conference regarding entry of default judgment. 

              Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order. 

BACKGROUND 

This is a payment dispute. On April 10, 2023, plaintiff McKesson Medical Surgical, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendant ‘Matias’ Clinical Laboratory, Inc., a California Corporation dba Health Care Providers Laboratory (Defendant), and Does 1 to 20, alleging causes of action for breach of contract and common counts. 

On February 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for terminating sanctions. The motion is unopposed. 

LEGAL STANDARD           

The court is authorized, after notice and an opportunity for hearing, to impose the following sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process: monetary sanctions, issue sanctions, evidence sanctions, terminating sanctions, and contempt. (Code Civ. Proc., §¿2023.030, subds. (a)-(e).) A terminating sanction may be imposed by an order striking the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process. (Id., § 2023.030, subd. (d)(1).)   

“The discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination. [Citation.]” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc.¿(2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992; see J.W. v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.¿(2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1142, 1169.) If a lesser sanction fails to curb misuse, a greater sanction is warranted. (Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 992.) “Discovery sanctions ‘should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed what is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.’” (Id.) “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.” (Id., quoting Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279–280); Creed-21 v. City of Wildomar¿(2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 690, 702, quoting Doppes and Mileikowsky.)   

The court should consider the totality of the circumstances, including conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful, the determent to the propounding party, and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain discovery. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) Terminating sanctions should not be ordered lightly, but are justified where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and there is evidence that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules. (Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 992.) 

Before any sanctions may be imposed the court must make an express finding that there has been a willful failure of the party to serve the required discovery responses. (Fairfield v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 113, 118.) The party who failed to comply with discovery obligations has the burden of showing that the failure was not willful. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 788; Cornwall v. Santa Monica Dairy Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 250, 252-253.)  

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2023.010, subdivisions (d) and (f) provide that a misuse of the discovery process includes, but is not limited to, “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery” and “[m]aking an evasive response to discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (f).) 

DISCUSSION           

            Plaintiff asks the Court to impose terminating sanctions against Defendant based on Defendant’s: (1) failure to respond to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Admissions, Set One; (2) failure to comply with the Court’s December 20, 2023 order granting Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to those written discovery requests; and (3) continued failure to participate in discovery. Plaintiff asks the Court to either enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff, or, alternatively, to strike Defendant’s answer, impose further monetary sanctions against Defendant, and award attorney’s fees to Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff states that the Court already established Defendant’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s written discovery. (Hettena Decl., Ex. A.)  Plaintiff also contends that Defendant has failed to respond to discovery/and or pay monetary sanctions, that Defendant has refused to participate in discovery, and that Defendant has willfully disobeyed this Court’s orders. (Hettena Decl., ¶¶ 11-13.) Plaintiff even notes that Defendant’s counsel stated unequivocally in a phone call on January 19, 2024, that Defendant would not be complying with the Court’s orders. (Hettena Decl., ¶ 13.) 

The Court finds Plaintiff’s motion to be well taken. Defendant has exhibited a consistent pattern of not participating in this action and not complying with discovery obligations. Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s written discovery requests, which led to Plaintiff’s filing of the motions to compel and motion to deem matters admitted. (Order re Tentative Ruling (12/20/23).) Defendant did not oppose those motions, and the Court granted them on December 20, 2023. (Id.) Defendant also did not oppose this motion for terminating sanctions, which the Court construes as a tacit admission from Defendant that it is meritorious. (Holden v. City of San Diego (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 404, 418; C. Opposing the Motion—and Rebutting the Opposition, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 9(I)-C, ¶ 9:105.10.) Defendant therefore has also necessarily failed to demonstrate that its noncompliance was not willful. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant has failed and refused to comply with its discovery obligations, and that its failure to comply was willful. (See Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 992.) Given Defendant’s failures to comply with its discovery obligations and disobedience to the Court’s December 20, 2023 order, the Court finds that imposing lesser sanctions would not produce compliance. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions by striking Defendant’s Answer filed on July 6, 2023. The Court will further set a status conference regarding entry of default judgment. 

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for the Court to enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor at this stage, as Plaintiff has not submitted any terms of a proposed judgment for the Court to enter. Also, given the Court’s decision to grant terminating sanctions, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions and attorney’s fees. While the Court does not deny Defendant misused the discovery process by failing to respond to discovery requests and comply with the Court’s order, the Court exercises its discretion to not impose monetary sanctions or attorney’s fees.[1] (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions. The answer of Defendant ‘Matias’ Clinical Laboratory, Inc., a California Corporation dba Health Care Providers Laboratory, filed on July 6, 2023, is hereby STRICKEN. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for entry of judgment in its favor. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions and attorney’s fees. The Court will further set a status conference regarding entry of default judgment. 

              Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.