Judge Ralph C. Hofer, Case Number: 23GDCV02556, Date: 2025-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Claudia C. Cadelina alleges that on October 28, 2022, in Glendale, California, defendant Kyle Lorenz C. Maglaya negligently operated a motor vehicle, causing injuries and damages to plaintiff. The form complaint also includes a cause of action for general negligence, alleging that defendants Kyle Lorenz C. Maglaya and Edmon Maglaya negligently owned, maintained, operated, entrusted and/or drove a motor vehicle so as to cause injuries and damages to plaintiff.

The file shows that on October 25, 2024, the court heard unopposed motions by defendant Kyle Lorenz C. Maglaya to compel responses to form interrogatories and requests for production of document, which were granted, and plaintiff ordered to serve responses and permit inspection and copying within ten days. Plaintiff was also ordered to pay monetary sanctions of $637.50, $60, $637.50, and $60 (a total of $1,395.00), payable within thirty days.

The file shows that the hearing on the discovery motions had been continued due to previous counsel for plaintiff having failed to timely file with the court an order pursuant to which counsel had been relieved as counsel of record for plaintiff, “effective upon the efiling of the proof of service of the signed order upon the client.” [Minute Order 05/24/2024].

Requests for Documents—Documents supporting contentions, documents referring to incident, identifying persons with knowledge of facts, relating to injuries, general damages, wage loss, loss of earning capacity, documents concerning medical expenses, treatment, medical providers, employment, insurance, photographs, accident investigation, recorded statements, medical history.

As an initial matter, the motion is brought by both named defendants, Kyle Lorenz C. Maglaya and Edmon Maglaya, when the discovery at issue was propounded only by defendant Kyle Lorenz C. Maglaya, and the court orders entered only in favor of that defendant. There has evidently been no written discovery served by defendant Edmon Maglaya which has been subject to a court order with which plaintiff has failed to comply. This situation gives rise to issues of standing, which are not addressed in the moving papers, as it is not explained under what authority Edmon Maglaya may move for relief with respect to failure to obey court orders which do not apply to that defendant. The motion is denied without prejudice as to defendant Edmon Maglaya.

With respect to defendant Kyle Lorenz C. Maglaya, the propounding party in favor of whom discovery orders were entered, under CCP § 2030.290 (c), if a party “fails to obey” a court order compelling responses to interrogatories, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010.” A similar provision applies to failure to obey a court order compelling a response to demands for documents. CCP § 2031.300 (c).

Under section 2023.010, “misuse of the discovery process” includes “(g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery.” Where there has been such conduct, under CCP section 2023.030 (d), the court may impose a terminating sanction by issuing an order “(1)...striking out the pleadings... of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.” Under subdivisions (b) and (c), the court may issue an issue or evidence sanction.

Where a court order has been disobeyed, the choice of sanction is within the court’s discretion and will only be set aside for abuse of discretion. Sauer v. Superior Court (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 213, 228. A trial court’s finding that noncompliance was willful will be upheld is supported by substantial evidence. Id.

In general, courts should grant lesser sanctions first before granting terminating sanctions. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771. The Second District in Deyo set out factors which may be relevant in deciding whether to impose sanctions and which sanction to impose:

“In exercising this discretion, a variety of factors may be relevant, including, 1) the time which has elapsed since interrogatories were served, 2) whether the party served was previously given a voluntary extension of time, 3) the number of interrogatories propounded, 4) whether the unanswered questions sought information which was difficult to obtain, 5) whether the answers supplied were evasive and incomplete, 6) the number of questions which remain unanswered, 7) whether the questions which remain unanswered are material to a particular claim or defense, 8) whether the answering party has acted in good faith, and with reasonable diligence, 9) the existence of prior orders compelling discovery and the answering party's response thereto, 10) whether the party was unable to comply with the previous order of the court, 11) whether an order allowing more time to answer would enable the answering party to supply the necessary information, and, 12) whether a sanction short of dismissal or default would be appropriate to the dereliction.”

“The penalty 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. Where a motion to comp[el has previously been granted, the sanction should not operate in such a fashion as to put the prevailing party in a better position than he would have had if he had obtained the discovery sought and it had been completely favorable to his cause.”

The purpose of the Discovery Act is to facilitate discovery with the view toward conducting trial on the merits: “One of the principal purposes of the Discovery Act...is to enable a party to obtain evidence in the control of his adversary in order to further the efficient, economical disposition of cases according to right and justice on the merits.” Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Superior Court (1961, 2nd Dist.) 188 Cal.App.2d 300, 303 (emphasis in the original). Accordingly, Caryl Richards is often quoted in sanctions opinions: “The sanctions the court may impose are such as are suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks but the court may not impose sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of discovery but to impose punishment.” Caryl Richards,.at 304, citations omitted; see, e.g. Motown Records Corp. v. Superior Court (1984, 2nd Dist.) 155 Cal.App.3d 482, 489.

In this case, plaintiff has been ordered to provide responses to two sets of discovery, and has failed to do so. The discovery requests basic information concerning plaintiff’s claims in this action, which information should not be difficult for plaintiff to obtain. The form complaint in this matter is particularly lacking in details, so that this information is critical to defendant in evaluating any defense in this action.

This motion concerns only one round of discovery, and it does not appear from the file that plaintiff has been persistently violating other discovery orders. Ordinarily in such circumstances, the motion might not be granted but plaintiff ordered one final time to provide the discovery, and to pay further monetary sanctions. The court will consider issuing one further order to plaintiff to provide the discovery here.

However, there is no opposition to this motion, and plaintiff also failed to oppose in writing the previous motions, and, as argued in the opposition, plaintiff’s former counsel in support of the motion to be relieved as counsel indicated that plaintiff’s conduct was making it unreasonably difficult for counsel to carry out the representation effectively. Counsel’s motion also cited an “increasing failure of communication.” The motion here argues that since the motion to be relieved as counsel was granted in May of 2024, plaintiff has ignored all communications, disregarded the court’s orders, and made no attempt to contact counsel for defendants or take any action in furtherance of plaintiff’s case. [Blunt Decl., paras. 4-7]. This assertion is supported by the file in this matter, which shows plaintiff has failed to file case management conference statements for two scheduled case management conferences, or to file any document since plaintiff’s counsel was relieved as attorney of record. Plaintiff has also failed to file timely written opposition to this motion.

The motion argues that plaintiff has also failed to pay the monetary sanctions awarded. However, it appears that as of the time of the filing of this motion, the monetary sanctions were not yet due. Specifically, the court order was issued on October 25, 2024, but notice of ruling was not served on plaintiff until October 28, 2024, by mail. Permitting an additional five days for service by mail, the monetary sanctions would have been due on December 2, 2024. The motion here, attesting that monetary sanctions had not yet been paid, was dated and filed on November 25, 2024, several days before the sanctions were due to be paid.

The court will inquire at the hearing if the monetary sanctions have been paid by plaintiff since the filing of this motion. If not, this will permit the court to find that the imposition of lesser sanctions has been ineffective here.

It is held that where there is a pattern of failing to provide discovery, the court may imply a continuing intent to abuse the discovery process, and permitting a party one more chance to comply is inappropriate. Manzetti v. Superior Court (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 373, 379. Failure to comply with discovery may be construed as an admission that the case has no merit: “A persistent refusal to comply with an order for production of evidence is tantamount to an admission that the disobedient party really has no meritorious claim...” Kahn v. Kahn (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 372, 382.

Although there is hardly a pattern established here, there has been a persistent twelve month refusal to respond to the discovery or to formal efforts to obtain it, and a disregard of the proceedings in this matter which would suggest plaintiff does not intend to further pursue prosecution of the matter. Particularly if there continues to be no opposition or argument at the hearing made on behalf of plaintiff, and the monetary sanctions have not been paid, the court would be within its discretion to grant the motion, and place the onus on plaintiff to explain why any resulting dismissal should be set aside.

CCP § 2031.300(c) provides that for failure to obey a court order compelling response to a document demand, “In lieu of or in addition to” an issue, evidence or terminating sanction, “the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” A similar provision applies to failure to obey a court order compelling responses to interrogatories. CCP § 2030.290(c).

Moreover, with respect to the motion overall, and to the extent the court were inclined to deny the motion in favor of permitting plaintiff one final opportunity to comply with the court’s previous order, the moving papers have not requested a monetary sanction in the notice of motion.

Defendants’ UNOPPOSED Motion for an Order Imposing Terminating Sanctions is DENIED as to defendant Edmon Maglaya, as this defendant did not propound the subject discovery or obtain a discovery order in defendant’s favor.

Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s order of October 25, 2024 requiring plaintiff to serve responses to interrogatories, serve responses to requests for production and permit copying and inspection, and to pay monetary sanctions. Plaintiff has also failed to file timely written oppositions to the prior motions or this motion. This result has resulted in prejudice to defendant.

The Court construes this persistent refusal to produce evidence as an admission that plaintiff has no meritorious claim against the moving defendant. See Kahn v. Kahn (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 372, 382. In addition, based on representations at the hearing, the imposition of lesser sanctions (monetary) have been ineffective in procuring plaintiff’s compliance with plaintiff’s discovery obligations in this matter. Plaintiff has also failed to submit case management statements or otherwise participate in this matter since being served with an Order Granting Attorney Motion to be Relieved as Counsel on May 28, 2024. The Court therefore orders the complaint as to defendant Kyle Lorenz C. Maglaya dismissed with prejudice.

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances. Department D is now requiring either live or VIDEO appearances, not audio appearances. Please note that in the case of video appearances, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED.