Judge Mark E. Windham, Case 21STLC04189 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC04189, Date: 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC04189 Hearing Date: August 4, 2022 Dept: 26

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Angela Denise Lasane’s Motion For Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT DISMISSES THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE AS TO DEFENDANT ANGELA DENISE LASANE. THE REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Cashiya Hollis (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendants Angela Denise Lasane (“Defendant Lasane”) and EAN Holdings, LLC on June 1, 2021. Defendant Lasane answered the Complaint on August 5, 2021. On February 24, 2022, the Court granted Defendant Lasane’s Motions to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production, and Requests for Sanctions against Plaintiff. (Minute Order, 02/24/22.)

Defendant Lasane filed the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions on June 28, 2022. On July 20, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel filed an opposition and Defendant Lasane replied on July 27, 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 Lasane’s discovery motions on February 24, 2022, pursuant to which Plaintiff was to serve responses and pay sanctions within 20 days’ service of the ruling. (Minute Order, 02/24/22.) Notice of the rulings was served on Plaintiff on March 1, 2022. (Notice of Ruling, filed 03/01/22.) To date, however, Plaintiff has not served responses nor paid sanctions as ordered. (Motion, Lee Decl., ¶6.)

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 a so-called “opposition” to the instant Motion that only serves to confirm that Plaintiff has been non-responsive to the discovery orders. (Opp., Yeager Decl., ¶2.) 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.)

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

Conclusion

Moving party to give notice.