Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 20STLC09440, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STLC09440    Hearing Date: September 7, 2023    Dept: 26

Campbell v. Marriott International, Inc., et al.

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2023.010)           

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Marriott International, Inc.’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT DISMISSES PLAINTIFF TRACY-ANN CAMPBELL’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Tracy-Ann Campbell (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Marriott International, Inc. (“Defendant”) on November 9, 2020. Defendant filed an answer on September 6, 2022. On October 24, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved. (Minute Order, 10/24/22.)

On February 9, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories. (Minute Order, 02/09/23.)

Defendant filed the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions on March 14, 2023. No opposition was filed but when the Motion initially came for hearing on June 7, 2023, Plaintiff appeared and requested a continuance. (Minute Order, 06/07/23.) The Court continued the hearing to September 7, 2023 and ordered Defendant to re-serve Plaintiff with the discovery requests. (Ibid.) It remains that no opposition has been filed.

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’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories on February 9, 2023. (Minute Order, 02/09/23; Motion, Samuels Decl., Exh. A.) Pursuant to the order, Plaintiff was to serve Defendants with responses to the discovery and pay sanctions within 20 days. (Ibid.) Notice of the ruling was served on Plaintiff on the next date. (Motion, Samuels Decl., Exh. B.) Plaintiff has not yet complied with the order to produce documents or pay sanctions. (Id. at ¶¶2-5.)

The Court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted for Plaintiff’s non-compliance with the discovery order. Despite notice of the Court’s ruling, Plaintiff failed to serve responses as ordered. This 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 Marriott International, Inc.’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT DISMISSES PLAINTIFF TRACY-ANN CAMPBELL’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.

Moving party to give notice.