Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV37084, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV37084    Hearing Date: June 22, 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 City of Los Angeles (Defendant) moves to dismiss the action of Plaintiffs Nfn Neeru and Simran Sahil Neeru (collectively, Plaintiffs) as a terminating sanction.   Plaintiffs oppose the motion.  Defendant replies.  

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); 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].) 

Here, on January 31, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to serve verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, and further ordered Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $400 within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.  (See January 31, 2023 Minute Order.)  Defendant gave Plaintiff notice of the order on February 3, 2023, electronically.  Plaintiff thus had until March 8, 2023, to serve responses, and pay the monetary sanctions, in compliance with the Court’s order of January 31, 2023.

In opposition, Plaintiffs contend that they will provide said verified discovery to the Defendant prior to the hearing on the motion.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs conclude that terminating sanctions will be inappropriate since they will have substantially complied with the Court’s January 31, 2023 order by the hearing on the motion.

In reply, Defendant states that Plaintiffs’ verified discovery responses remain outstanding.  The Court further notes that Plaintiffs have not filed with the Court any evidence that they have complied with, or even attempted compliance with, the January 31, 2023 order of the Court since filing their opposition on June 9, 2023. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions and dismisses Plaintiffs’ action against Defendant without prejudice. 

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