Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC06294, Date: 2023-12-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STLC06294 Hearing Date: April 8, 2024 Dept: 26
Foster v. Murray, et al.
MOTION FOR TERMINATING AND MONETARY SANCTIONS
(CCP
§ 2023.010)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Tonika Murray’s Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF BOBBY FOSTER’S COMPLAINT, FILED ON AUGUST 27, 2021, IS
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. THE REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IS GRANTED AGAINST
PLAINTIFF BOBBY FOSTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,361.65, TO BE PAID WITHIN 20 DAYS OF
NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.
ANALYSIS:
On August 27, 2021, Bobby Foster
(“Plaintiff”) filed this motor vehicle action against
Defendant Tonika Murray (“Defendant”). Defendant filed an answer to the
Complaint and cross-complaint on February 16, 2023. Defendant
filed motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to interrogatories and requests
for production on October 3, 2023. The discovery motions were granted on
December 14, 2023. (Minute Order, 12/14/23.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to serve responses and to pay sanctions
within 20 days. (Ibid.) Defendant filed the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions on January 30, 2024. Plaintiff’s
counsel filed an opposition declaration on February 7, 2024; Defendant filed a
reply declaration on March 29, 2024.
Discussion
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 motions
to compel Plaintiff’s responses to interrogatories and requests for production,
and requests for sanctions on December 14, 2023. (Minute Order, 12/14/23;
Motion, Beck Decl., Exh. A.) Defendant served Plaintiff with Notice of the
Ruling on the same date. (Motion, Beck
Decl., Exh. A.) To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the order to serve
responses or pay sanctions. (Id. at ¶9.)
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 other than a declaration
from Plaintiff’s counsel admitting to no communication from their client in
more than a year. (Opp., Yeager Decl., ¶2.) 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.)
Monetary sanctions are also warranted for Plaintiff’s
non-compliance with the Court’s order to respond to discovery. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (g).) Sanctions of $1,361.65 are awarded to Defendant
against Plaintiff in connection with the instant Motion based on 5.5 hours of
attorney time billed at $200.00 and $61.65 in filing fees. (Motion, Beck Decl.,
¶12.)
Conclusion
Moving party to give notice.