Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV21885, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21885    Hearing Date: September 27, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: September 27, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Moving Party: Plaintiff Shangri-La Construction, L.P.

Responding Party: None

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

PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

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

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.)

Plaintiff moves for terminating sanctions against Defendant Streamline Integration on the ground that Defendant has failed to comply with Court’s discovery orders. On August 4, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s five motions to compel discovery responses and pay sanctions, and ordered Defendant to provide responses within 15 days. Defendant has not produced responses or paid sanctions.

This action has been pending for more than a year. Defendant has failed to respond to Plaintiff’s basic discovery requests. Defendant did not oppose Plaintiff’s discovery motions or appear at the hearing. Defendant failed to comply with the Court’s August 4, 2023 order and has not opposed this motion. The Court finds that terminating sanctions are appropriate.

Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED.