Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 19STLC03652, Date: 2022-08-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STLC03652    Hearing Date: August 30, 2022    Dept: 26

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Irais Delgado’s Motion For Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT DISMISSES THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE AS TO DEFENDANT IRAIS DELGADO. Based on Plaintiff's non-compliance with court ordered discovery.

   SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005 (b)) OK

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for motor vehicle negligence.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF: Grant terminating sanctions against Plaintiff for failure to comply with the Court’s discovery orders.

OPPOSITION: Plaintiff has been unable to provide responses because he has not been in communication with counsel. Counsel is in the process of withdrawing as counsel but Plaintiff should be given an opportunity to respond to this Motion and to the motion to withdraw.  

REPLY: Nothing in the opposition shows an end in sight to Plaintiff’s violation of the Court’s discovery orders. Dismissal of the action for such abusive practices is warranted by law.      

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Reginald Thomas (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants Irais Delgado (“Defendant Delgado”) and Carolina Delgado Bailon on April 15, 2019. Defendants answered the Complaint on December 7, 2021. On April 7, 2022, the Court granted Defendant Delgado’s Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production, and Requests for Sanctions against Plaintiff. (Minute Order, 04/07/22.)

Defendant Delgado filed the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions on May 20, 2022. Plaintiff filed an opposition on August 17, 2022 and Defendant Delgado replied on August 23, 2022.

Legal Standard

Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subds. (d), (g); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) The court should look to the totality of the circumstances in determining whether terminating sanctions are appropriate. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) “[A] penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.” (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.) “The court may impose 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.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).)

Discussion

The Court granted Defendant Delgado’s discovery motions on April 7, 2022, pursuant to which Plaintiff was to serve responses and pay sanctions within 20 days’ service of the ruling. (Minute Order, 04/07/22.) Notice of the rulings was served on both parties on the same date. (Motion, Hong Decl., Exh. A, p. 3.) To date, however, Plaintiff has not served responses nor paid sanctions as ordered. (Id. at ¶8.)

The Court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted for Plaintiff’s non-compliance with the discovery orders. Despite notice of the Court’s ruling, Plaintiff failed to serve responses or pay sanctions as ordered. Given the notice provided, the Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the discovery order to be willful. Plaintiff’s counsel filed an opposition to the instant Motion that only serves to confirm that he has been non-responsive to the discovery orders. (Opp., Yeager Decl., ¶2.) That Plaintiff’s attorney has not been able to contact him for eight months and now seeks to withdraw as counsel does not absolve Plaintiff of responsibility for the proceedings in this action. In fact, it further demonstrates that compliance with the Court’s orders cannot be achieved through lesser sanctions. Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, “[t]he court [is] not required to allow a pattern of abuse to continue ad infinitum.” (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 280.)

Conclusion

Defendant Irais Delgado’s Motion For Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT DISMISSES THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE AS TO DEFENDANT IRAIS DELGADO. Based on Plaintiff's non-compliance with court ordered discovery.

Moving party to give notice.