Judge: Nathan R. Scott, Case: Granillo v. City of Santa Ana, Date: 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Defendant County of Orange’s motion for sanctions is granted in part.

Plaintiff Jose Antonio Granillo shall pay $2150 in additional discovery sanctions to defendant.

Plaintiff shall comply with the 3/11/22 order compelling responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests no later than 10/10/22.

The court continues this hearing to 10/14/22.  The parties shall file and serve supplemental briefs re plaintiff’s compliance no later than 10/12/22 at 3 pm.  If plaintiff has failed to comply, the court will issue an evidentiary sanction barring him from introducing at trial any evidence that would be responsive to the form interrogatories, requests for production, or request for statement of damages.

“The discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.  ‘Discovery 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.”’”  (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.) 

Imposing terminating sanctions would be disproportionate to the harm caused by plaintiff’s failure to comply with one discovery order.  It would place defendant in a much better position than if plaintiff had responded.

Defendant shall give notice.