Judge Martha K. Gooding, Case 2021-01220222 2022-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 2021-01220222, Date: 2022-08-29 Tentative Ruling

1) Motion for Terminating Sanctions

2) Case Management Conference

3) Status Conference

The Motion by Defendant Sustainable Living Solutions, Inc. for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff Lauren Palmer is DENIED. Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED, as set forth below.

Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(d), failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process warranting sanctions. So, too, is disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (Id., subd. (g); Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal. App. 4^th 1495, 1516.) Imposition of sanctions for misuse of discovery lies within the trial court’s discretion. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4^th 967, 991.) Once a party is ordered by the court to provide responses to discovery, continued failure to respond may result in the imposition of more severe sanctions. (See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290(c) (interrogatories), 2031.300(c) (requests for production); see also The Rutter Group, Civil Procedure before Trial ¶ 8:852.)

The moving party need only show the failure to obey the court’s earlier discovery orders. Thereafter, the burden of proof shifts to the party seeking to avoid sanctions to establish a satisfactory excuse for his or her conduct. (Corns v. Miller (1986) 181 Cal. App. 3d 195, 201; Puritan Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Tri–C Machine Corp.) (1985) 171 Cal. App. 3d 877, 884; Civil Procedure before Trial ¶¶ 8:860, 8:1241.)

Before issuing terminating sanctions, the court should usually grant lesser sanctions such as orders staying the action until the derelict party complies, or orders declaring matters as admitted or established if answers are not received by a specified date, often accompanied with costs and fees to the moving party. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc., 174 Cal. App. 4^th at 99; Civil Procedure before Trial ¶ 8:1215.) It is only when a party persists in disobeying the court’s orders that the ultimate sanctions of dismissing the action or entering default judgment, etc. are justified. (See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771.)

At the time the instant motion was filed, Plaintiff had failed to comply with the Court’s 5/16/22 orders compelling her to respond to discovery and pay sanctions. (Ho Decl., ¶ 3.)

However, since the motion was filed, Plaintiff has complied with the Court’s 5/16/22 order by serving responses to the subject discovery without objections and paying the ordered sanctions. (Cojocnean Decl., ¶ 11.)

While terminating sanctions are not appropriate, the Court finds that monetary sanctions are warranted. While counsel for Plaintiff details a series of unfortunate events that explain why discovery responses were not originally served; counsel should have had procedures in place to ensure compliance with Plaintiff’s litigation responsibilities.

As a result, the Court orders sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel in the amount of $1,486, to be paid to Defendant within 30 days of the notice of ruling.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.