Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV06260, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV06260    Hearing Date: April 27, 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 Hughes Bryant (Defendant) moves to dismiss the action of Plaintiff Edward Lee (Plaintiff) as a terminating sanction.  In the alternative, Defendant seeks evidentiary, issue and monetary sanctions.   Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.  

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); 2033.280, subd. (a).)

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].) 

Here, on January 13, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to deem admitted matters specified in the Request for Admissions, set one (RFA), and deemed admitted the matters specified in the RFA propounded to Plaintiff.  (See January 13, 2023 Minute Order.) The Court further ordered Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $510 within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.  (See January 13, 2023 Minute Order.)  Defendant gave Plaintiff notice of the order on January 19, 2023, electronically and via mail.  Plaintiff thus had until February 23, 2023 to pay the monetary sanctions.  As of the filing date of the motion Plaintiff has not paid the outstanding monetary sanctions to Defendant.

Defendant further attests that Plaintiff never provided any discovery responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production served on Plaintiff on March 18, 2022.  (See Declaration of Candace B. Lee, ¶ 4.)  Defendant also states Plaintiff has failed to make himself available for deposition.  (See Declaration of Candace B. Lee, ¶ 6.)  However, Defendant has not filed motions to compel the purportedly outstanding discovery, and thus, Plaintiff has not disobeyed court orders regarding said outstanding discovery.

In addition, the Court notes that Plaintiff has not paid the monetary sanctions in the amount of $510 to Defendant as ordered.  But “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.)  Moreover, as Defendant, concedes in the motion, the Court has deemed all matters set forth in the RFA admitted.  The Court therefore denies Defendant’s request for terminating, evidence, issue  and monetary sanctions as unwarranted under the circumstances as such request for sanctions seems punitive in nature. 

The purpose of the discovery statutes is to enable a party to obtain evidence under the control of his adversary in order to further the efficient and economical disposition of a lawsuit. Where no answers are filed, a trial judge is empowered to select one of the sanctions authorized by . . . the Code of Civil Procedure.  Where a motion to compel has been granted, and discovery has been delayed or denied, the court must make orders in regard to the refusal as are just.  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.  Where a motion to compel has previously been granted, the sanction should not operate in such a fashion as to put the prevailing party in a better position than he would have had if he had obtained the discovery sought and it had been completely favorable to his cause. The sanction of dismissal or the rendition of a default judgment against the disobedient party is ordinarily a drastic measure which should be employed with caution.

(Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 793 [cleaned up].) 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies Defendant’s motion for terminating, issue, evidentiary and monetary sanctions.  Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.