Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV27988, Date: 2023-04-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV27988    Hearing Date: April 19, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

            Defendant Starbucks Corporation (Defendant) moves to dismiss the complaint of Plaintiff Ashot Bznuni (Plaintiff) as a terminating sanction.  Plaintiff has not opposed the motion.  

ANALYSIS

When a party misuses the discovery process by disobeying a court order to provide discovery, the court in its discretion may impose a terminating sanction by striking a party’s pleading or dismissing the action of the party.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (g), 2023.030, subds. (d)(1) & (d)(3); 2025.450, subd. (h), 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) 

California discovery law authorizes a range of penalties for a party's refusal to obey a discovery order, including monetary sanctions, evidentiary sanctions, issue sanctions, and terminating sanctions.  A court has broad discretion in selecting the appropriate penalty, . . . . Despite this broad discretion, the courts have long recognized that the terminating sanction is a drastic penalty and should be used sparingly.  A trial court must be cautious when imposing a terminating sanction because the sanction eliminates a party's fundamental right to a trial, thus implicating due process rights.  The trial court should select a sanction that is tailored to the harm caused by the withheld discovery.  Sanctions 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.

(Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604 [cleaned up].)  Equally important, “a terminating sanction issued solely because of a failure to pay a monetary discovery sanction is never justified.”  (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

Here, on January 17, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to appear for deposition, and further ordered Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,036.75 to Defendant, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.  (See January 17, 2023 Minute Order.) 

On January 18, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses, without objections, to Special Interrogatories, set one, Request for Production of Documents, set two, Supplemental Request for Production of Documents, and Supplemental Interrogatory; and to  pay $870 in monetary sanctions to Defendant, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.  (See January 18, 2023 Minute Order.) 

Defendant gave Plaintiff notice of the Court’s orders on January 20, 2023, electronically and by mail.  Plaintiff thus had until March 1, 2023, to comply with the Court’s orders of January 17 and 18, 2023.

As of the filing date of the motion, Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s orders to appear for deposition, serve verified responses, or pay the monetary sanctions.  Plaintiff has thus disobeyed this Court’s orders of January 17 and 18, 2023.  Further, Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, and has thus waived the right to argue that a terminating sanction is unwarranted.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion for a terminating sanction, and dismisses the complaint of Plaintiff without prejudice. 

Defendant shall provide notice of this Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.