SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background  

Plaintiff Robert Joiner (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Andria Kyung Ah Seo (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle incident.¿ 

Defendant now moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims because of Plaintiff’s misuse of the discovery process by failing to serve responses to written discovery and failing to comply with the court’s October 21, 2022 order pertaining to Defendant’s motions to compel responses to the subject discovery. Plaintiff does not oppose this motion; any opposition should have been received by August 21, 2023.  

 

II. Motion for Terminating Sanctions  

Code of Civil Procedure § 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(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, 84 Cal.App.3d at 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, 84 Cal.App.3d at 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."  (Ibid.)  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].) 

Here, Defendant submits that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the discovery requests, and Plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s October 21, 2022 Order compelling Plaintiff to serve verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s request for production, set two, special interrogatories, set three, and form interrogatories, set three within 20 days. (Min. Order, Oct. 21, 2023.) Furthermore, because Plaintiff did not serve responses to Defendant’s request for admissions, set two, the Court deemed the requests for admissions admitted. (Ibid.)   

Defense counsel declares it served a notice of the Court’s ruling on July 28, 2022 (though no Exhibit A was attached), and that no responses have been served to date. (Mot. Decl. Gage ¶¶ 2, 5.) Further, Plaintiff does not oppose this motion and appears to have abandoned the case. Therefore, the Court concludes Plaintiff knew of his discovery obligations, knew of the Court Order compelling his compliance, and failed to demonstrate his non-compliance was not willful. Given Plaintiff’s prior failure to comply with discovery obligations, failure to meet and confer with defense counsel, and apparent disinterest in prosecuting this action, the Court finds lesser sanctions would not curb the abuse.  

Based on the foregoing, terminating sanctions are imposed at this time. Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s action against Defendant is hereby dismissed.  

 

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

Dated this 31st day of August, 2023