Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV33127, Date: 2024-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33127    Hearing Date: April 16, 2024    Dept: 30

ISRRAEL RESENDEZ MARQUEZ, et al. vs RAYMOND GARCIA

TENTATIVE

Plaintiffs Isrrael Resendez Marquez and Ricardo Camacho’s motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED. The Court STRIKES Defendant Raymond Garcia’s answer.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

Background

On October 10, 2022, Plaintiffs Isrrael Resendez Marquez and Ricardo Camacho filed a complaint against Defendant Raymond Garcia, alleging causes of action for negligence, and motor vehicle negligence, stemming from a vehicle collision that occurred on March 18, 2021.

On February 9, 2024, this court granted Plaintiffs’ motions to compel Defendant’s responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents. Defendant was ordered to serve responses without objections within 20 days of date of the orders.

On March 8, 2024, Plaintiffs filed this motion for terminating sanctions. No opposition has been filed.

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

Plaintiffs move for terminating sanctions against Defendant, on the ground that Defendant failed to comply with the Court's February 9, 2024 order to respond to discovery and failed to pay sanctions.

On February 9, 2024, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ motions to compel Defendant’s responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, request for production of documents. (2/9/2024 Minute Order.) The Court ordered Defendant to provide verified responses without objections to the discovery within 20 days. (Id.) Defendant has not responded to the Court-ordered discovery. (Juhn Decl., ¶ 7.)

Defendant has failed to respond to discovery, failed to comply with the Court's orders to respond to discovery, and has not even filed an opposition to this motion to explain how this failure to comply was not willful. As such, Defendant has failed to explain why he has been unable to comply with the outstanding court order, and the Court finds that Defendant 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.”]) Based on Defendant’s willful failure to comply with the Court’s Orders, the Court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted in this instance. Also, Defendant’s failure to comply has been detrimental to Plaintiff’s attempt to prepare for trial, which is currently set for June 3, 2024.

As such, the Court GRANTS the motion and STRIKES Defendant’s answer.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED. The Court STRIKES Defendant Raymond Garcia’s answer.