Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 21STLC05836, Date: 2023-08-30 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 Rachel Nicole Lee’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF LUELLE LLORENS’ COMPLAINT, FILED ON AUGUST 9, 2021, IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Plaintiff Luelle Llorens (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Rachel Nicole Lee (“Defendant”) on August 9, 2021. Defendant filed an answer on May 4, 2022. On June 27, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved. (Minute Order, 06/27/22.)

On May 3, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, and Request for Sanctions, and Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Inspection, and Request for Sanctions. (Minute Order, 05/03/23.)

Defendant filed the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions on October 6, 2023, which was set for hearing on November 8, 2023. On November 8, 2023, Defendant appeared and the hearing was continued to November 15, 2023 due to the Court’s unavailability. (Minute Order, 11/08/23.) Defendant was ordered to give notice of the continuance. (Ibid.) On November 15, 2023, the Court continued the hearing to allow Defendant to file proof of service of the notice of continuance. (Minute Order, 11/15/23.) Defendant filed the notice of continuance on December 7, 2023. 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.

The Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, and Request for Sanctions, and Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Inspection, and Request for Sanctions on May 3, 2023. (Minute Order, 05/02/23; Motion, Blamires Decl., Exh. C.) Pursuant to the order, Plaintiff was to serve Defendant with responses to the discovery and pay sanctions of $412.28. (Ibid.) Notice of the ruling was served on Plaintiff on June 21, 2023. (Ibid.) To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the order to produce documents or pay sanctions. (Id. at ¶4.)

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. Nor has Plaintiff filed an opposition to this noticed motion. This 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.)