Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV09984, Date: 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV09984    Hearing Date: May 9, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: May 9, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Terminating Sanctions;

Motion to Continue Trial

Moving Party: Defendants My Management Co., Inc., 230 S. Carondolet, LLC, Jacob Tversky, Steve Fleischmann, Joe Goldstein and Malu Rodriguez

Responding Party: None

T/R:   DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS IS GRANTED.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL IS DENIED.

DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.

            The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition has been received.

A. Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against Plaintiff Tatsuya Kawamura

It is a misuse of the discovery process to fail “to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery,” (CCP § 2023.010(d)) or to disobey “a court order to provide discovery.”  (CCP § 2023.010(g).)  Under CCP § 2023.030, courts have the authority to issue monetary sanctions, evidentiary sanctions, or terminating sanctions after giving parties proper notice and the opportunity to be heard.

In determining whether sanctions should be imposed, courts consider the totality of the circumstances, including the “conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.”  (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal. App. 4th 1225, 1246.)   “The penalty should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.”  (Wilson v. Jefferson (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 952, 959.)

Defendants move for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff Tatsuya Kawamura on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s discovery orders. On October 13, 2022, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel discovery responses and pay sanctions. Plaintiff did not respond or pay sanctions.

This action has been pending for more than three years and Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendants’ basic discovery requests. Plaintiff failed to oppose Defendant’s discovery motion and failed to appear at the hearing on the motion. Plaintiff failed to oppose this motion. The Court finds that terminating sanctions are appropriate.

            Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED.

B. Motion to Continue Trial

While trial continuances are generally disfavored, pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1332(c), circumstances that indicate good cause for a continuance include “[a] party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts.” (CRC Rule 3.1332(c)(6).) Factors the Court may consider include, “[t]he proximity of the trial date,” “[w]hether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party,” and “[t]he length of the continuance requested.” (CRC Rule 3.1332(d).)

Defendants move to continue trial on the ground that Plaintiffs have failed to provide basic discovery responses. The Court declines to continue trial. As noted, this action has been pending for three years. Defendants may seek redress for Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to discovery through motions for sanctions and/or motions in limine.

Defendants’ motion to continue trial is DENIED.