Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC03181, Date: 2023-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC03181    Hearing Date: March 27, 2023    Dept: 26

Del Rio v. Villanueva, et al.
MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
(CCP § 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Amanda Villanueva’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT DISMISSES PLAINTIFF JULIANA DEL RIO’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Juliana Del Rio (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Amanda Villanueva (“Defendant”) on April 22, 2021. On October 17, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Compel Deposition and Requests for Sanctions against Plaintiff. (Minute Order, 10/17/22.) The Court also granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved on February 6, 2023. (Minute Order, 02/06/23.)

Defendant filed the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions on December 15, 2022. No opposition has been filed to date.

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

Defendant moves for dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint under the above provisions. The Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition on October 17, 2022, pursuant to which Plaintiff was to appear for deposition and pay sanctions within 20 days’ service of the ruling. (Minute Order, 10/17/22.) Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to compel deposition and appeared at the hearing through counsel. (Minute Order, 10/17/22.) Pursuant to the order, Defense counsel served a third amended notice of deposition on Plaintiff on October 21, 2022, which set the deposition for November 10, 2022. (Motion, Morris Decl., Exh. H.) Plaintiff did not appear for the deposition on November 10, 2022 or communicate regarding the non-appearance. (Id. at ¶¶12-13 and Exh. I.)

Terminating sanctions are warranted for Plaintiff’s non-appearance at the Court-ordered deposition. Despite notice of the Court’s ruling, Plaintiff failed to appear or otherwise communicate regarding the rescheduled deposition. Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the discovery order to be willful. Nor has any opposition to the Motion been filed despite notice of the request to terminate this action. Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, Plaintiff’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.)

Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant Amanda Villanueva’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT DISMISSES PLAINTIFF JULIANA DEL RIO’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.

Moving party to give notice.