SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background Facts 

Plaintiff David Medina (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Rives Grogan (“Grogan”), New Beginnings Christian Discipleship (“New Beginnings”), GM Service & Management, and Does 1 to 25 for injuries Plaintiff sustained after falling from the second story of a building.  

At this time, Plaintiff moves again for terminating sanctions against New Beginnings for disobeying the Court’s September 2, 2022 order compelling New Beginnings to serve verified responses to Plaintiff’s set one of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production (“RPDs”), without objections, within ten days. (Min. Order, Sept. 2, 2022.) The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions on the grounds that Plaintiff did not provide proof that he paid an additional filing fee, which was the condition precedent for the September 2, 2022 Order to be effective, in addition to the Court’s concerns regarding proof of service of the notice and motion. (Min. Order, July 20, 2023.) Plaintiff’s renewed motion filed on August 3, 2023 has cured the defects.  

The motion was initially heard on October 19, 2023, and at the time, New Beginnings did not file any opposition to the motion. At the hearing, the Court ordered and reopened CCP § 1005 deadlines. (Min. Order, Oct. 19, 2023.) The court also placed New Beginnings on notice that an oral or late opposition would not be considered. (Ibid.)  

On the Court’s own motion, the hearing was continued to December 7, 2023. Any opposition was due on or before November 22, 2023; 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, 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 that New Beginnings failed to comply with the Court’s September 22, 2022 Order compelling responses to Plaintiff’s set one of special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and request for production of documents, within 10 days. To date, Plaintiff declares New Beginnings has failed to serve verified discovery responses and has not paid sanctions. (Decl. Corday, ¶ 12-13.) However, the Court notes that it did not impose any monetary sanctions against New Beginnings. (Min. Order, Sept. 22, 2022.)  

The Court notes that, on November 27, 2023 and November 28, 2023, Defendant Grogan filed a number of unverified discovery responses, some unsigned, on behalf of New Beginnings. Although the Court recognizes Grogan’s attempt to comply with the Court’s order, as a general rule, it is well-established in California that a corporation cannot represent itself in a court of record either in propria persona or through an officer or agent who is not an attorney. (Caressa Camille, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 1094, 1101.) In short, New Beginnings must be represented by a licensed attorney. In consideration of Defendants’ status in propria, and Grogan’s earnest attempt to participate and comply with discovery obligations, the Court denies the motion for terminating sanctions and monetary sanctions without prejudice at this time. 

 

Because New Beginnings must be represented by counsel, the Court sets an OSC re: Why Defendant New Beginnings’ Answer Should Not Be Stricken For Failing To Be Represented By Counsel for _______________. New Beginnings must find counsel to represent it before this date.