Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 20STCV45169, Date: 2023-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV45169    Hearing Date: April 11, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

Plaintiff Ana Morales (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Argo Spring Manufacturing Co., Inc. (“Defendant”) for damages arising from Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant.

Plaintiff moves for terminating sanctions against Defendant striking Defendant’s answer to the complaint and entering default because of Defendant’s misuse of the discovery process by failing to serve responses to initial discovery and failing to comply with the Court’s December 15, 2023 order compelling Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s first set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents on or by January 4, 2023.  (Minute Order 12/15/2023.)  Plaintiff also moves for monetary sanctions for $1,060.00 against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel, BaronHR LLC. 

A.    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, Plaintiff submits evidence showing Defendant has failed to comply with the discovery requests, and Defendant failed to comply with the Court’s December 15, 2023 compelling Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s first set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents on or by January 4, 2023.  (Motion, Rudman Decl. ¶¶ 4-7; Minute Order 12/15/2023.)  Further, the discovery at issue does to the crux of Plaintiff’s claim, and Defendant does not oppose this motion. 

            Based on the foregoing, terminating sanctions are imposed striking Defendant’s answer to the complaint and entering default pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030.

B.    Monetary Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a) provides that:

The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.  The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both.  If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(a).) 

Here, the Court does not find that Defendant acted with substantial justification or that other

circumstances make the imposition of a monetary sanction unjust as no opposition has been filed.  The Court awards a monetary sanction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030(a).  Plaintiff is awarded one hour for preparing the meet and confer letter, the declaration, and the memorandum of points and authorities and a half hour for the appearance at this motion all at the rate of $500 per hour for a total of $750.00 in attorney fees.  Plaintiff is also awarded $60.00 to cover the filing fee for this motion.  (Motion, Rudman Decl. ¶ 8.)  Defendant and Defendant’s counsel, BaronHR LLC are ordered to pay a monetary sanction in the amount of $810.00 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, within fifteen (15) days of this ruling.

            Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

·         Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

·         If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

·         Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

·         If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

Dated this 11^th day of April 2023