Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCV00774, Date: 2024-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV00774    Hearing Date: November 21, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Goss, et al., v. Woolnough, et al.

CASE NO.:                23SMCV00774

MOTION:                  Motion for Terminating Sanctions

HEARING DATE:   11/21/2024

Legal Standard

If a party fails to obey a court order compelling it to provide a discovery response, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction . . . In lieu of or in addition to this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction . . ..” (CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2030.300(e), 2031.300(c), 2031.320(c).) Misuse of the discovery process, which includes disobeying a court order to provide discovery, is conduct subject to sanctions. (CCP § 2023.010(g).) Possible sanctions include:

(d) [A] terminating sanction by one of the following orders:

(1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.

(2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed.

(3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.

(4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.

(CCP § 2023.030.)

The party seeking to impose sanctions need only show the failure to obey earlier discovery orders. (Puritan Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 877, 884 [interpreting former statute dealing with “refusal” to comply].) However, numerous cases hold that severe sanctions (i.e., terminating or evidentiary sanctions) for failure to comply with a court order are allowed only where the failure was willful. (R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495; Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1545; Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327.) The burden of proof then shifts to the party seeking to avoid sanctions to establish a satisfactory excuse for his or her conduct. (Corns v. Miller (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 195, 201.)

Analysis

Plaintiffs Matt Goss and Bros. moves for terminating sanctions against Defendant Paul Woolnough. Plaintiffs request entry of default against Defendant, and a default judgment prove-up hearing. The motion is MOOT per the entry of default against Defendant. A default prove up and Order to Show Cause is already scheduled for November 26, 2024. Accordingly, the motion is taken OFF-CALENDAR.