Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC07994, Date: 2023-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC07994    Hearing Date: January 30, 2023    Dept: 26

Hider, et al. v. Seagren, et al.

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Megan Jill Seagren’s Motion For Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED AS TO PLAINTIFF MARVO HIDER AND DENIED AS TO MINOR PLAINTIFF JOY HIDER. THE COURT DISMISSES PLAINTIFF MARVO HIDER’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE. THE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL MONETARY SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Marvo Hider (“Plaintiff”) and minor Plaintiff Joy Hider, by and through their guardian ad litem, Marvo Hider (“minor Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Megan Jill Seagren (“Defendant”) on November 8, 2021. On August 1, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s Motions to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories and Requests for Production, and Requests for Sanctions against Plaintiff. (Minute Order, 08/01/22.)

Defendant filed the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Request for Monetary Sanctions on October 5, 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 and minor Plaintiff’s Complaint under the above provisions. The Court granted Defendant’s discovery motions on August 1, 2022, pursuant to which Plaintiff was to serve responses and pay sanctions within 20 days’ service of the ruling. (Minute Order, 08/01/22.) The parties’ attorneys discussed the ruling over email on September 26, 2022. (Motion, Ogunnubi Decl., Exh.B.) To date, however, Plaintiff has not served responses nor paid sanctions as ordered. (Id. at ¶3.)  

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. 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.)

However, Defendant’s request for terminating sanctions against minor Plaintiff is without merit. No discovery orders were issued against minor Plaintiff and there has been no indication of discovery abuse by minor Plaintiff. Nor is the request for additional monetary sanctions supported by the Notice of Motion or supporting declaration.

Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant Megan Jill Seagren’s Motion For Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED AS TO PLAINTIFF MARVO HIDER AND DENIED AS TO MINOR PLAINTIFF JOY HIDER. THE COURT DISMISSES PLAINTIFF MARVO HIDER’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE. THE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL MONETARY SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.