Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 22STCV00377, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV00377, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV00377 Hearing Date: March 25, 2024 Dept: 30

JASON MOTA, AN INDIVIDUAL vs RONALD SMOTHERS, AN INDIVIDUAL

TENTATIVE

Defendant Ronald Smothers’ motion for terminating sanctions dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint is DENIED. Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff Jason Mota is ordered to pay $660 in monetary sanctions to Defendant’s counsel within 20 days of this order.

Legal Standard

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 against Plaintiff on the ground that Plaintiffs failed to comply with the Court's December 13, 2023 and December 14, 2023 orders compelling Plaintiff to respond to discovery and pay monetary sanctions.

As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s opposition is untimely.

“A trial court has broad discretion to overlook late-served papers and to resolve the matter on the merits.” (Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Social Services (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 162, 168 [“(E)ven if the service had been untimely, the trial court was vested with discretion to overlook the defect”]; see also Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 755, 765 [“A trial court has broad discretion under rule 3.1300(d) of the Rules of Court to refuse to consider papers served and filed beyond the deadline without a prior court order finding good cause for late submission.”].) The court exercises its discretion and considers the merits of the opposition.

On December 13, 2023, this Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Compel and ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses to Request for Admissions within 20 days. (12/13/23 Minute Order.) Defendant gave Plaintiff notice of this ruling on December 19, 2023. (Mullen Decl., Exh. A.) The Court also imposed sanctions against Plaintiff payable within 20 days. (Id.) Then, on December 14, 2023, this Court granted Defendant’s Motions to Compel Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents and ordered Plaintiff serve verified responses within 20 days. (12/14/2023 Minute Order.) Defendant gave Plaintiff notice of this ruling on December 18, 2023. (Mullen Decl., Exh. B.) Despite the Court’s orders, Plaintiffs failed to respond to discovery and pay sanctions.

In opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel contends that he withdrew from the case because Plaintiff was not responding to his attempts to contact Plaintiff. Then, Plaintiff established contact with his former counsel in March 2024 and relayed that he was not reachable as he had done military service and did not provide his contact information to his attorney’s office. (Bloeser Dec. ¶ 10). After searching the court docket, Plaintiff’s former counsel saw the present Motion to Dismiss on calendar for failure to abide by the Court’s Orders. Plaintiff retained his former counsel again. Plaintiff’s counsel obtained verified discovery responses and issued a check for the sanctions in the amount of $260 payable to Defendant’s counsel, confirmed in an email on March 14, 2024 along with a FedEx tracking number. (Bloeser Dec. ¶ 12; Exh. 9.)

The Court finds terminating sanctions is not appropriate because Plaintiff has responded to the discovery. Thus, discovery has been provided. To the extent that Defendant takes issue with the responses, Defendant must move to compel further.

However, the Court grants Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions. Plaintiff's inaction in this case and his discovery obligations amounted to stringing the defense and this Court along, and is sanctionable. While Plaintiff’s counsel states Plaintiff was in the military, Plaintiff should have informed his counsel that he would be unavailable and/or given an address where Plaintiff’s counsel could reach him. Thus, due to Plaintiff’s failure to timely provide responses, and failure to timely obey the Court’s order to provide responses within 20 days, the Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $660 ($200 per hour for 3 hours, plus $60 filing fee) to be paid within 20 days of this order.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint is DENIED. Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to pay $660 in monetary sanctions to Defendant’s counsel within 20 days of this order.