Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 20STCV15480, Date: 2023-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV15480    Hearing Date: April 12, 2024    Dept: 30

CHRISTINA GUTIERREZ vs CITY OF LOS ANGELES

TENTATIVE

Defendant AEG Management LACC, LLC’s motion for terminating sanctions dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant is GRANTED.

The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant AEG Management LACC, LLC with prejudice.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Background

This is an action for premises liability arising from a slip and fall incident which took place in May 2019. Plaintiff Christina Gutierrez filed her Complaint against the City of Los Angeles on April 22, 2020.

On March 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Doe Amendment naming AEG Management LACC, LLC as defendant in this action.

On January 31, 2024, this Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, and Special Interrogatories. The Court ordered Plaintiff to provide code-compliant responses without objections to the discovery within 20 days.

On March 7, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to enforce the January 31, 2024 order, and for terminating and monetary sanctions. No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Friday, April 12, 2024

CCP section 2023.030 provides that, "[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method..., the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose... [monetary, evidence, and terminating] sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process...." CCP section 2023.010 provides that "[m]issues of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following:... (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.... (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery...."

"The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse 'after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.'" (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390 (quoting Lang v. Hachman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246).) "Generally, '[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.'" (Los Defensores, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390 (citation omitted).)

"Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders." (Id. (citing Lang, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1244- 1246); see, e.g., Collisson X Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622 (terminating sanctions imposed after defendants failed to comply with one court order to produce discovery); Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal App 3d 481, 491 (disapproved on other grounds in Garcia v. McCucchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 478, n. 4) (terminating sanctions imposed against plaintiff for failing to comply with a discovery order and for violating various discovery statutes).)

Discussion

Defendant moves for terminating and monetary sanctions on the ground that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's January 31, 2024, order compelling Plaintiff to provide code compliant responses without objections to discovery.

On January 31, 2024, this Court granted Defendant’s Motions to Compel Form and Special Interrogatories, and ordered Plaintiff to serve code-compliant responses without objections and without the option to produce writings under CCP 2030.290(a) that substantially answer all sub-sections within 20 days. (1/31/2024 Minute Order.) Notice of the Court order was given to Plaintiff on February 2, 2024. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 4; 2/2/24 Notice of Ruling.) On February 29, 2024, defense counsel sent an email to Plaintiff's counsel reminding him that Plaintiff was ordered to provide code-compliant responses to the Form and Special Interrogatories, Sets One, and that said responses were overdue. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 9.) As of the date of this motion Plaintiff has not complied with the Court's Order. (Id., ¶ 10.)

Further, on February 15, 2024, the Court granted in part Co-Defendant ABM Industry Groups, LLC’s motion for terminating and monetary sanctions. Although the Court denied the motion for terminating sanctions, it granted the request for monetary sanctions and ordered Plaintiff to pay $860.00 to Co-Defendant ABM Industry Groups, LLC within 20 days for failing to timely respond to Defendant ABM Industry Groups, LLC’s discovery responses, despite being compelled by this Court to respond within 20 days. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 7; 2/15/24 Minute Order.) Plaintiff never paid the monetary sanctions as ordered. (Id.)

Further, on December 29, 2023, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to deem requests for admission as moot, but ordered Plaintiff to pay Defendant $590 in monetary sanctions within 30 days of the Court's Order. (12/29/23 Minute Order.) Plaintiff never paid the monetary sanctions as ordered. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 7.)

First, the Court notes that whether Defendant complied with the Court’s order to pay monetary sanctions is not relevant to the determination of whether terminating sanctions¿should be imposed. A court may not issue a terminating sanction for failure to pay a monetary discovery sanction. ¿(Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 610, 615.)¿ A monetary sanction order is enforceable as a money judgment under the Enforcement of Judgments Law, CCP §§680.010, et seq. (Id. at 615.)

Nevertheless, Plaintiff has failed to respond to discovery, failed to comply with the Court's order to respond to discovery, and failed to oppose this motion for terminating sanctions. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to explain why she has been unable to comply with the outstanding court order, and as a result, the Court finds that Plaintiff has willfully misused the discovery process by this lack of diligence. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 787 [“Lack of diligence may be deemed willful in the sense that the party understood his obligation, had the ability to comply, and failed to comply.”]) Moreover, imposing less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules as sanctions have already been imposed against Plaintiff, yet Plaintiff still will not comply with this Court’s order to provide code-compliant responses. It appears that Plaintiff is disinterested in prosecuting this case. As such, because Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant’s written discovery requests, failed to obey this Court’s order to respond, and failed to bother to file an opposition to inform the Court as to how it has not willfully misused the discovery process, terminating sanctions are appropriate.

As terminating sanctions are being granted, the request for monetary sanctions is denied.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant is GRANTED.

The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant AEG Management LACC, LLC with prejudice.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.