Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV07785, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07785    Hearing Date: December 7, 2022    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

            Respondent Infinity Insurance Company (Respondent) moves to dismiss, with prejudice, the Uninsured Motorist Claims by Claimants Miasel Gutierrez Hernandez and Erick Melendez Jimenez (Claimants) as a terminating sanction.  Claimants oppose 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); 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 July 22, 2022, the Court ordered Claimants to appear for deposition within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders, as well as pay $247.50 in monetary sanctions to Respondent, within 60 days of notice of the Court’s orders.  (See July 22, 2022 Minute Order.)  Respondent gave Claimants notice of the order on August 1, 2022, electronically.  Claimants thus had until August 31, 2022, to appear for deposition, and until September 30, 2022 to pay the monetary sanctions. 

Respondent served the deposition notice on Claimants on August 1, 2022.  Respondent noticed Claimants’ depositions for September 20, 2022.  Claimants failed to appear for their depositions on that date. 

            In opposition, Claimants advance the declaration of counsel for Claimants, Alberto Daniel Ramos (Ramos).  Ramos states that since January 1, 2021, Counsel has been unable to communicate with Claimants regarding scheduling their depositions.  (Declaration of Alberto Daniel Ramos, ¶ 3.)  Ramos states he has hired USA Express Legal & Investigative Services, Inc. to attempt to find/locate the Claimants.  (Declaration of Alberto Daniel Ramos, ¶ 8.)  Claimants therefore argue a terminating sanction is unjust because Claimants did not willfully disobey the Court’s order of July 22, 2022, but rather were not aware that such an order existed due to their lack of communication with Ramos.

The Court finds that Claimants have established that their failure to comply with the Court’s order of July 22, 2022, was not willful.  Further, Ramos is taking steps to contact Claimants and notify them of the status of their claims.  As such, the Court concludes that a terminating sanction in this instance would be in excess of what is required to protect the party entitled to but denied discovery.

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].)  The Court therefore denies Respondent’s motion to dismiss Claimants’ claims as a terminating sanction. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies without prejudice Respondent’s motion to dismiss Claimants’ Uninsured Motorist claims as a terminating sanction.  Respondent shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.