Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV30813, Date: 2023-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV30813     Hearing Date: May 15, 2023    Dept: 31

TENTATIVE

Defendant DL English Design Studio’s unopposed motion for terminating sanctions dismissing Plaintiff Derek Carl Ebert’s complaint is GRANTED.

The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant with prejudice.

Background

On August 20, 2021, Plaintiff Derek Carl Ebert (“Plaintiff”) sued Defendant DL English Design Studio (“Defendant”), alleging causes of action for disability discrimination and leave violations.

On November 8, 2022, Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff to provide responses to form interrogatories (set one) was granted.

On December 12, 2022, Defendant filed this motion for terminating sanctions. No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

If a party fails to comply with a court order compelling a further response to a request for production, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (i).) Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 provides that, "[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method..., the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose... [monetary, evidence, and terminating] sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process...." CCP section 2023.010 provides that "[m]issues of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following:... (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.... (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery...."

"The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse 'after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.'" (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390 (quoting Lang v. Hachman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246).) "Generally, '[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.'" (Los Defensores, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390 (citation omitted).)

"Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders." (Id. (citing Lang, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1244- 1246); see, e.g., Collisson X Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622 (terminating sanctions imposed after defendants failed to comply with one court order to produce discovery); Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal App 3d 481, 491 (disapproved on other grounds in Garcia v. McCucchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 478, n. 4) (terminating sanctions imposed against plaintiff for failing to comply with a discovery order and for violating various discovery statutes).)

Discussion

Defendant moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff on the ground that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's November 8, 2022, order compelling him to provide responses to discovery.

On November 8, 2022, this Court granted Defendant’s Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and ordered Plaintiff to serve responses within 30 days. (11/8/2022 Minute Order.) Despite the Court’s November 8, 2022, Order, Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s discovery. (Valenti Decl., ¶ 10.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has engaged in conduct that is an abuse of the discovery process in disobeying the Court’s November 8, 2022, order compelling discovery responses. As such, terminating sanctions dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants is appropriate as it appears imposing less severe sanctions against Plaintiff would not produce compliance, and that Plaintiff is disinterested in prosecuting this case.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendant DL English Design Studio’s motion for terminating sanctions dismissing Plaintiff Derek Carl Ebert’s complaint is GRANTED.

The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant with prejudice.

Moving party to give notice.