SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background  

On May 1, 2020, Plaintiff Sherry Delgadillo (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Super Center Concepts Inc. d/b/a Superior Grocers (“Defendant”) for damages relating to Plaintiff’s slip and fall on Defendant’s property. 

Defendant now moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff to strike Plaintiff’s complaint and/or dismiss the action with prejudice on the grounds that Plaintiff  failed to abide by the Court’s (1) May 30, 2023 Order to provide further responses to Defendant’s special interrogatories and form interrogatories, and (2) July 12, 2023 Order to provide further responses to Defendant’s request for production (“RPDs”) and has failed to pay monetary sanctions. 

Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendant filed a reply. 

 

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 failed to comply with the Court’s May 30, 2023 and July 12, 2023 Order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to Defendant’s form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs. Defendant contends Plaintiff never complied with the Court’s May 30, 2023 by serving any further responses or by paying the imposed sanctions. As for the July 12, 2023 Order, Plaintiff served further responses. However, Defendants contend Plaintiff’s further responses are non-compliant because Plaintiff provided an invalid pre-signed verification along with deficient responses.  

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that complete, verified, and objection-free further responses to Defendant’s set one of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs have been served prior to the hearing on the instant motion. Plaintiff also argues that she remedied the verification defect in Plaintiff’s most recent responses on September 30, 2023. Furthermore, Plaintiff avers that payment has been made to defense counsel in the amount of $2,455 on October 1, 2023, in full satisfaction of the Court’s prior imposition of monetary sanctions. 

In reply, Defendant argues terminating sanctions are still warranted because Plaintiff only complied with the Court’s prior orders after Defendant had filed the instant motion. Furthermore, Defendant reiterates that the responses served remain deficient. 

The Court does not find terminating sanctions warranted here, considering Plaintiff has since demonstrated compliance with the Court’s Orders by providing responses to the specific discovery requests at issue and paid the past due monetary sanctions in full. Whether or not the further responses provided are deficient, that is not an issue to be properly addressed on a motion for terminating sanctions. Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions is DENIED.  

 

III. Sanctions  

Defendant requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,455 pursuant to CCP § 2023.010. Because Plaintiff provided further responses and paid past due monetary sanctions only after the motion was filed, the Court finds additional monetary sanctions warranted to reimburse Defendant for the time and expense of the instant motion. 

Defendant is awarded 3 hours to prepare the motion, 2 hours to draft the reply, and 1 hour to appear at the hearing, all at the requested rate of $175/hour for a total of $1,050 in attorney fees. Further, Defendant is awarded the motion filing fee of $60 as costs.  

Sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney of record, jointly and severally.  Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $1,110, within twenty (20) days. 

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.