I. BACKGROUND  

Plaintiffs Patricio Harris and Cheuk Ying Lam (“Plaintiff Lam”) filed this action against defendants Manuel Hernandez (“Hernandez”), Shatha Alhazmi, and Does 1-50 for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiffs filed amendments to complaint naming Uber Technologies, Raiser LLC, and Raiser-CA LLC (collectively, “Uber”) as Does 1, 2, and 3, respectively. 

Uber now moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff Lam for failing to serve verified discovery responses in compliance with the Court’s November 20, 2023 Order pertaining to Uber’s motion to compel discovery responses.  

Defendant Hernandez joins the motion, incorporating all arguments set forth by Uber. Preliminarily, the Court will not consider Defendant Hernandez’s joinder. If Defendant Hernandez has a basis for terminating sanctions as it relates to him, he may bring his own separately noticed motion.  

Any opposition was due on or before March 1, 2024; none was filed.   

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).)  “[T]the trial court has broad discretion in selecting the appropriate sanction, and we must uphold the trial court's determination absent an abuse of discretion.”  (Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 154, 191, overturned on other grounds in Presbyterian Camp & Conference Centers, Inc. v. Superior Court (2021) 12 Cal.5th 493, 516 n. 17.)   

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, supra, 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].) 

Uber asserts it served set one of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production of documents (RPDs), and requests for admission (RFAs) on Plaintiff on August 10, 2023. Plaintiff has been in pro per since the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel in February 2023. On November 17, 2023, the Court granted Uber’s unopposed motions to compel, and ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs, without objections, within twenty days. (Min. Order, Nov. 17, 2023.) The ruling would be final upon Uber’s proof of payment of an additional filing fee. (Ibid.) Uber paid the additional filing. (Notice of Payment, Nov. 17, 2023.) Uber served the notice of ruling to Plaintiff Lam on November 20, 2023. Uber contends that, to date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s order by failing to serve responses.  

Here, there is no evidence that Plaintiff Lam served responses to the outstanding discovery in compliance with this Court’s November 17, 2023 Order. Plaintiff Lam does not oppose this motion and appears to have abandoned the case. Therefore, the Court concludes Plaintiff Lam 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 Lam’s failure to comply with discovery obligations, failure to participate in litigation, and apparent disinterest in prosecuting this action, the Court finds lesser sanctions would not curb the abuse.    

Uber’s motion for terminating sanctions is therefore GRANTED. Plaintiff Lam’s action against Uber is hereby dismissed.  

Moving party is ordered to give notice.  

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

Dated this 13th day of March 2024