Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV47052, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV47052    Hearing Date: May 25, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1.     Background 

On December 27, 2021, Plaintiff Rodney Brookins (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendant Anthony Contreras  (“Defendant”) for Motor Vehicle and General Negligence arising from an automobile collision. 

Defendant moves for an order terminating sanctions in the form of a dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint for his misuse of the discovery process and failure to obey the Court’s February 15, 2023 order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.030(d) and (g) and 2023.030(3).  The motion is unopposed.

2.     Motion for Terminating Sanctions Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010(d) and (g) provide that “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery” and “[d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery” are misuses of the discovery process.  Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030 gives the court the discretion to impose sanctions against anyone engaging in a misuse of the discovery process.  Further, a court may impose terminating sanctions by “[a]n order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(d)(3).)  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, the Court finds Defendant has proffered evidence demonstrating Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order.  On February 15, 2023, this Court granted Defendant’s Motions to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Production of Documents.  (Aslanian Decl., ¶ 6.)  The Court ordered Plaintiff to serve verified Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Production of Documents, without objection, within ten (10) days of the Court’s Order.  (Ibid.)  The Court also ordered Plaintiff to pay a monetary sanction of $580.00 within twenty (20) days of the Court’s Order.  (Ibid.)  Defendant’s counsel served notice of this ruling on February 20, 2023 and filed it with the court.  (Id., ¶ 7.)  However, to date, Defendant’s counsel’s office has not received Plaintiff’s discovery responses or objections, and Plaintiff has not paid Defendant $580.00.  (Id., ¶¶ 8,11.)  Also, no extensions have been requested or granted, and Defendant has received no communication from Plaintiff regarding the outstanding discovery responses.  (Id., ¶¶  9-10.)  

As Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant’s discovery and pay Defendant $580.00, Plaintiff has failed to obey the Court Order of February 15, 2023.  Consequently, Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order constitutes a misuse of the discovery process where the court may impose terminating sanctions.  While terminating sanctions are severe, Plaintiff does not oppose this Motion and appears to have abandoned the case.

 Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED.  Plaintiff’s action against Defendant is hereby dismissed. 

Defendant does not seek monetary sanctions in connection with this motion, and the Court does not impose monetary sanctions.

            Defendant 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 25^th day of May, 2023