Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 2STCV37598, Date: 2024-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 2STCV37598    Hearing Date: March 1, 2024    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion for Terminating Sanctions [and] Request for Monetary Sanctions

Moving Party: Defendant YMCA of Hollywood, California

Resp. Party:    None

The Motion for Terminating Sanctions [and] Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in part.

Defendant YMCA of Hollywood, California is DISMISSED from the Complaint.

An order to show cause is scheduled for March 25, 2025 as to why the Complaint should not be dismissed as to the remaining defendant.

BACKGROUND:

On November 30, 2022, Plaintiff M. R. filed a Complaint against Defendants Doe 1 and Doe 2. The causes of action arise from an alleged childhood sexual assault.

On April 17, 2023, Defendant YMCA of Hollywood, California (“Defendant,” sued as “Doe 1”) filed its Answer to the Complaint.

On May 22, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s then-Counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel. This motion was unopposed.

On October 30, 2023, the Court granted Defendant YMCA of Hollywood, California’s motions to compel initial responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents. The Court also deemed admitted Defendant YMCA of Hollywood, California’s requests for admission. These motions were unopposed.

On January 9, 2024, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. This motion was unopposed.

On February 6, 2024, Defendant filed its Motion for Terminating Sanctions [and] Request for Monetary Sanctions. Defendant concurrently filed its Proposed Order.

On February 23, 2024, Defendant filed its Notice of Non-Opposition.

No opposition or other response has been filed to the Motion for Terminating Sanctions [and] Request for Monetary Sanctions.

ANALYSIS:

I.          Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 gives the court the discretion to impose sanctions against anyone engaging in a misuse of the discovery process. A court may impose terminating sanctions by striking pleadings of the party engaged in misuse of discovery or entering default judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) A violation of a discovery order is sufficient for the imposition of terminating sanctions. (Collison & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1620.) Terminating sanctions are appropriate when a party persists in disobeying the court's orders. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 795–796.)

A terminating sanction is a "drastic measure which should be employed with caution." (Deyo, supra, at p. 793.)

"A decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction." (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279–280.)

While the court has discretion to impose terminating sanctions, these 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." (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 793.) "[A] court is empowered to apply the ultimate sanction against a litigant who persists in the outright refusal to comply with his discovery obligations." (Id.) Discovery sanctions are not to be imposed for punishment, but instead are used to encourage fair disclosure of discovery to prevent unfairness resulting for the lack of information. (See Midwife v. Bernal (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 57, 64 [superseded on other grounds as stated in Kohan v. Cohan (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 967, 971.)

"A trial court has broad discretion to impose discovery sanctions, but two facts are generally prerequisite to the imposition of nonmonetary sanctions . . . (1) absent unusual circumstances, there must be a failure to comply with a court order, and (2) the failure must be willful." (Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327; but see Reedy v. Bussell (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1272, 1291 ["willfulness is no longer a requirement for the imposition of discovery sanctions."].)

II.       Discussion

Defendant moves the Court to issue terminating sanctions and monetary sanctions against Plaintiff. (Motion, p. 7:23–27.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s Orders and sanctions are warranted. (Id. at pp. 5:1–3, 5:17–19, 7:10.)

There is no evidence before the Court that indicates Plaintiff has served discovery responses or otherwise complied with the Court’s Minute Order dated October 30, 2023. There is also no indication that any sanction would result in Plaintiff serving responses to Defendant’s outstanding discovery requests. Rather, considering that Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to serve timely responses, has repeatedly chosen not to respond to motions, and has not even responded to this motion for terminating sanctions, it appears that Plaintiff has ceased participating in this case.

        The Court GRANTS in part the motion and ISSUES terminating sanctions. However, given that Plaintiff has been litigating this matter in propria persona since May 22, 2023, monetary sanctions would not be appropriate here. The Court DENIES the request for monetary sanctions.

III.     Conclusion

The Motion for Terminating Sanctions [and] Request for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED in part.

Defendant YMCA of Hollywood, California is DISMISSED from the Complaint.

An order to show cause is scheduled for March 25, 2024 as to why the Complaint should not be dismissed as to the remaining defendant.