Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 21STCV10864, Date: 2024-01-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV10864    Hearing Date: March 28, 2024    Dept: 30

SEUNGSHIK HAN, et al. vs ARCADIA OPCO LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al.

TENTATIVE

Defendant Arcadia Opco LLC dba Embassy Suites Hotel’s unopposed motion for terminating sanctions dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint against Defendant is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ complaint against Defendant is dismissed with prejudice.

Legal Standard

"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 sanctions against Plaintiffs based on Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Court’s January 16, 2024 order to respond to discovery.

On January 16, 2024, this Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production (Set One), and ordered Plaintiff to provide responses within 20 days. (1/16/2024 Minute Order.) Plaintiff’s counsel was present at the hearing. (Id.) Further, on January 18, 2024, defense counsel served the Notice of Ruling on Plaintiff’s counsel. (1/18/2024 Notice of Ruling.) To date, Plaintiff has not responded to any outstanding discovery. (Eldridge Decl., ¶ 9.)

The Court finds Plaintiffs have been engaging in discovery abuse. Defendants propounded on Plaintiffs discovery requests, yet Plaintiffs failed to comply with their discovery obligations. Further, Plaintiffs have also failed to provide responses to the discovery, even after this Court ordered them to do so. Based on Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Court’s Order, the Court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted in this instance. Additionally, Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition, and thereby have failed to explain why they have failed to comply with the Court’s order. As a result, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have 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.”]) Also, Plaintiffs’ failure to comply is detrimental to Defendant’s ability to prepare for trial. As such, because there is a willful history of discovery abuse after numerous attempts to obtain such discovery, to the detriment of Defendant, the motion for terminating sanctions is granted.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s unopposed motion for terminating sanctions dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint against Defendant is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ complaint against Defendant is dismissed with prejudice.