Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 19NWCV00396, Date: 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19NWCV00396    Hearing Date: September 1, 2022    Dept: SEC

CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. v. EMPIRE CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION

CASE NO.:  19NWCV00396

HEARING:  09/01/22

JUDGE:  OLIVIA ROSALES

#2

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant EMPIRE CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION, INC.’s Answer is STRICKEN. The request for monetary sanctions is DENIED. CCP §2023.030

Moving Party to give Notice.

No Opposition filed as of August 30, 2022.

CCP §2023.010 includes: “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” CCP §2023.030 provides, in part: “To the extent authorized by this chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, may impose the [sanctions] against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process, including monetary and issue and terminating sanctions.” Failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery and disobeying a court order to provide discovery are both misuses of the discovery process.” (CCP §§2023.010 (d) and (g).) Sanctions which may be imposed for a misuse of the discovery process include “terminating sanctions.”

Plaintiff seeks terminating and monetary sanctions on the basis that Defendant is refusing to participate in the discovery process. Specifically, Defendant has failed to comply with this Court’s May 31, 2022 Discovery Order.

Defendant does not oppose the instant Motion.

It is a commonly stated axiom that 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.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 793.) However, a court is empowered to apply the ultimate sanction against a litigant who persists in the outright refusal to comply with discovery obligations. The refusal to reveal material evidence is deemed to be an admission that the claim or defense is without merit. (Id. at 794-795.)

Where no Opposition to the instant Motion has been filed as of August 30, 2022 it is undisputed that Defendant is unwilling to comply with its discovery obligations.

The Court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted here. The information sought by Plaintiff is important to this case. Defendant’s blatant refusal to participate in this litigation supports the conclusion that lesser sanctions would not be appropriate.

The motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED as indicated above. Defendant’s Answer is STRICKEN. The Court DENIES monetary sanctions as terminating sanctions are sufficient redress.