SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background  

Plaintiff Shakela Murphy (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, and Jilk Heavy Construction, Inc. for damages arising from a trip and fall on a sidewalk. Plaintiff dismissed the County of Los Angeles. 

Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”) and Jilk Heavy Construction, Inc. (“Jilk”) (collectively, “Defendants”) now move for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, or in the alternative, evidentiary sanctions to preclude certain witnesses from testifying at trial. Defendants move for terminating sanctions on the grounds that Plaintiff  failed to abide by the Court’s June 7, 2023 Order to provide further responses.  

Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendants filed a reply. 

The motion was set to be heard on October 11, 2023. However, the hearing was continued to December 22, 2023 due to Plaintiff’s technical issues. The Court now rules as follows.  

 

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 June 7, 2023 Order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to Defendant Jilk’s set one of form interrogatories and special interrogatories. (Min. Order, June 7, 2023.) The Order pertained to Jilk’s Form Interrogatory No. 2.13 and 12.1, and Special Interrogatory No. 15. (Ibid.) Defendants contend that Plaintiff has not provided any further discovery responses and have not paid sanctions as of the filing date of Defendants’ Motion on September 18, 2023.  

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that Plaintiff did not provide further responses until September 26, 2023 due to a calendaring misunderstanding, and because the Court’s June 7, 2023 Order did not provide a deadline for Plaintiff to serve further discovery responses. Plaintiff avers that the delay in providing further responses was neither deliberate nor intentional, and that verified amended responses have since been served to demonstrate Plaintiff’s compliance with the Court’s order. Plaintiff provides copies of Plaintiff’s amended responses to Defendant Jilk’s special interrogatories, set one, No. 15, and form interrogatories, set one, Nos. 2.13 and 12.1, which were served on Defendants on September 26, 2023. (Plaintiff Errata Opp., Exhs. C and D.) 

In reply, Defendants acknowledge that responses were provided on September 26, 2023, but that evidentiary sanctions are still warranted because responses were provided more than three months from the Court’s Order.   

Plaintiff is correct that the Court’s June 7, 2023 Order did not provide a deadline for Plaintiff to serve further responses. Furthermore, the Court does not find either terminating or evidentiary sanctions warranted here, considering Plaintiff has demonstrated compliance with the Court’s Order by providing responses to the specific discovery requests at issue. Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions is DENIED.  

 

III. Sanctions  

A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought. (CCP §2023.040.) Both Defendants and Plaintiff request monetary sanctions.  

Both Defendants’ and Plaintiff’s Notice do not comply with CCP §2023.040, because neither party identifies the party and/or attorney against whom sanctions are sought. Furthermore, because Defendants’ motion is denied, the request for sanctions may also be denied on those grounds. Both requests for monetary sanctions are DENIED. 

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.