Judge Mark E. Windham, Case 20STLC04925 2022-07-27 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.

Defendant Daniel Lee Brown’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT DISMISSES THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE. THE REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

Plaintiffs Treviouteu Johnson, Donovan Brown, and Margaret Armstrong (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Daniel Lee Brown (“Defendant”) on June 12, 2020. Defendant answered the Complaint and filed a Cross-Complaint on March 15, 2021. On March 21, 22 and 23, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s Motions to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production, and Requests for Sanctions against each Plaintiff. (Minute Orders, 03/21/22, 03/22/22, 03/23/22.)

Defendant filed the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions on April 20, 2022. On May 3, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed an opposition.

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.

The Court granted Defendant’s discovery Motions on March 21, 22, and 23, 2022, pursuant to which Plaintiffs were to serve responses and pay sanctions within 20 days’ service of the ruling. (Minute Orders, 03/21/22, 03/22/22, 03/23/22.) Notice of the rulings was served on Plaintiff on March 25, 2022. (Notices of Ruling, 03/25/22.) Defense counsel also sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the responses on April 19, 2022. (Motion, Pak Decl., ¶5 and Exh. D.) To date, however, Plaintiffs have not served responses nor paid sanctions as ordered. (Id. at ¶6.)

The Court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted for Plaintiffs’ non-compliance with the discovery orders. Despite notice of the Court’s ruling and a meet and confer effort by defense counsel, Plaintiffs failed to serve responses or pay sanctions as ordered. Given the notice provided, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the discovery order to be willful. Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a so-called “opposition” to the instant Motion that only serves to confirm that they have been non-responsive to the discovery orders. (Opp., Yeager Decl., ¶2.) Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, Plaintiffs’ 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.)

In light of the order for terminating sanctions, the request for additional monetary sanction is denied as both futile and punitive.

Defendant Daniel Lee Brown’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT DISMISSES THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE. THE REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IS DENIED.