Judge Mark E. Windham, Case 20STLC01503 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing.

The e-mail address is SSCdept26@lacourt.org

The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the matter will be placed OFF CALENDAR.

Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.

State Farm v. Lau. et al.

MOTION FOR TERMINATING AND MONETARY SANCTIONS
(CCP § 2023.010, et seq.)

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT STRIKES DEFENDANT RICK LAU’S ANSWER FILED ON MARCH 13, 2023.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE ENTRY OF DEFAULT IS SET FOR JULY 11, 2023 AT 9:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 OF THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

On February 13, 2020, Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Rick Lau (“Defendant”) for automobile subrogation. Defendant filed an answer on March 13, 2020. On January 3, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and for Monetary Sanctions; and (2) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted, and for Monetary Sanctions. (Minute Order, 01/03/23.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion for terminating and monetary sanctions against Defendant on February 8, 2023, which seeks an order striking Defendant’s answer and entering their default. No opposition has been filed to date.

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.

On January 3, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and for Monetary Sanctions; and (2) Motion to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One, Admitted, and for Monetary Sanctions. (Minute Order, 01/03/23.) Defendant was ordered to serve responses to the form interrogatories and pay $570.00 in sanctions within 20 days. (Ibid.) Notice of the ruling was mailed to Defendant on January 6, 2023. (Notice of Ruling, filed 01/11/23.) As of the filing of this motion, Defendant has not served responses as ordered. (Id. at ¶3.)

The Court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted for Defendant’s non-compliance with the orders to serve responses to the outstanding discovery. Despite notice of the Court’s ruling, Defendant failed to serve the responses and pay the sanctions as ordered. Nor has Defendant filed an opposition to the instant motion for terminating and monetary sanctions. Given the notice provided, the Court finds Defendant’s failure to comply with the discovery order to be willful. Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, Defendant’s conduct demonstrates that compliance with the Court’s orders cannot be achieved through lesser sanctions. “The 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.)

However, the request is limited to striking Defendant’s answer. An award of additional monetary sanctions would be futile and punitive.

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT STRIKES DEFENDANT RICK LAU’S ANSWER FILED ON MARCH 13, 2023.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE ENTRY OF DEFAULT IS SET FOR JULY 11, 2023 AT 9:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 OF THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.