SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background  

Plaintiff Pearl Elizabeth Morrissey (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Stephanie Rico and Roxana Rico (“Defendants”) for damages arising from a three-car motor vehicle accident.¿ 

Defendants now move 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 April 21, 2023 order pertaining to Defendants’ motions to compel responses to the subject discovery. Any opposition was due on or before August 25, 2023; no opposition 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).)  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, Defendants submit that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s April 21, 2023 Order compelling Plaintiff to serve verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s set one of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents within 15 days. (Min. Order, April 21, 2023.) The ruling was effective upon Defendants paying an additional $120 in filing fees. (Ibid.) Defendants submit evidence of the required payment. (Mot. Decl. Snook; Exh. B.)  

Defense counsel declares it served a notice of the Court’s ruling on May 9, 2023. (Id at ¶ 5; Exh. B). Defense counsel further declares no responses have been served to date. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Further, Plaintiff does not oppose this motion and appears to have abandoned the case. Therefore, the Court concludes Plaintiff knew of her discovery obligations, knew of the Court Order compelling his compliance, and failed to demonstrate her 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. Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s action against Defendants is hereby dismissed.  

 

III. Sanctions  

Defendants also seek monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. The imposition of terminating sanctions does not make the imposition of monetary sanctions unjust. (See Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. Hennings (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 57, 76-78.)   

However, the Court finds imposition of terminating sanctions sufficient to meet the ends of justice at this time and does not find imposition of additional monetary sanctions necessary.