SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background Facts 

Plaintiff Rudy Mauricio Benavides (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Leila Dvalishvili (“Defendant”) for injuries arising from a motor vehicle incident. Plaintiff is in pro per. 

On May 30, 2023, Defendant previously moved for terminating sanctions to dismiss Plaintiff’s action due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s April 13, 2023 order compelling responses to Defendant’s set one of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents (“RPDs”), within twenty days of the hearing. The Court denied the motion without prejudice for procedural defects on the issue of service. (Min. Order, Aug. 14, 2023.) 

Now, Defendant again moves for terminating sanctions, having cured the procedural defects identified in the prior ruling, in addition to providing sufficient attestation to the clerical error on the proof of service regarding the Court’s April 13, 2023 ruling. (Hurley Decl. ¶10.) The Court will consider the renewed motion on the merits. 

 

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, Defendant asserts that she served her initial set of written discovery on February 28, 2022. On May 27, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s former counsel’s motion to be relieved, and no discovery responses were served at that point. On July 27, 2022, Defendant propounded discovery requests upon Plaintiff in pro per directly. No responses were served. Defendant then filed motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to discovery on October 11, 2023. On April 13, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel and Plaintiff was ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, within twenty days. (Min. Order, April 13, 2023.) 

 Here, Defendant submits that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s April 13, 2023 order. To date, Plaintiff has failed to serve verified discovery responses. (Hurley Decl. ¶15.) There is no evidence that Plaintiff served responses to Defendant’s propounded discovery in compliance with the Court’s Order. Plaintiff does not oppose this motion and appears to have abandoned the case. Therefore, the Court concludes Plaintiff knew of his discovery obligations, knew of the Court Order compelling its compliance, and failed to demonstrate his non-compliance was not willful. Given Plaintiff’s 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.    

 

Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s action is hereby dismissed.