Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 23TRCV02990, Date: 2024-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV02990, Date: 2024-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV02990 Hearing Date: December 5, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: December 5, 2024

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV02990

CASE NAME: Mohameduvesh Patel v. Stephanie Hernandez Hijar, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Stephanie Hernandez Hijar and Irma Hijar Martinez

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Mohameduvesh Patel (No Opposition)

TRIAL DATE: Not Set.

MOTION: (1) Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Tentative Rulings: (1) DENIED as to Defendants’ motion as to terminating sanctions, but GRANTED as to monetary sanction as against Plaintiff in the total amount of $1,000 to be paid along with compliance with this Court’s September 12, 2024 minute order on or before January 9, 2025. Failure to comply with this order will warrant this court to set an OSC RE: Failure to Pay Monetary Sanctions and Failure to Comply with Court Orders; why court should not impose terminating sanctions.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual

On September 11, 2023, Plaintiff, Mohameduvesh Patel (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants, Stephanie Hernandez Hijar, Irma Hijar Martinez, and DOES 1 through 50. The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence; and (2) General Negligence.

On March 6, 2024, this Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel. According to the Court’s records, Plaintiff remains a self-represented litigant.

On July 26, 2024, Defendants, Stephanie Hernandez Hijar and Irma Hijar Martinez (collectively “Defendants”) served demands for production of documents, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and form interrogatories, set one Plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to provide timely responses which subsequently prompted Defendant to file Motions to Compel Initial Responses. The Motions to Compel were granted by this court on September 12, 2024, and this court ordered Plaintiff to provide responses on or before October 11, 2024. On September 19, 2024, Defendants provided notice of the Court’s order to Plaintiff. However, despite this,

Defendants state they have not received any verified responses from Plaintiff and has not received any indication from Plaintiff that he intends to comply with the Court’s order.

Thus, Defendants have brought a Motion for Terminating Sanctions.

B. Procedural

On November 4, 2024, Defendants filed this Motion for Terminating Sanctions. To date, no opposition brief has been filed.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence, or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010(d), (g), 2023.030; R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.)

Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.040 requires that “[a] request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.” Furthermore, the notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.040.)

Monetary sanctions may be imposed “ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct…unless [the Court] finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.030(a).)

In more extreme cases, the Court may also impose terminating sanctions by “striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings,” “staying further proceedings,” “dismissing the action, or any part of the action,” or “rending a judgment by default” against the party misusing the discovery process. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.030(d).) The court should look to the totality of the circumstances in determining whether terminating sanctions are appropriate. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77¿Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196¿Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) “[A] penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.” (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.) “Although in extreme cases a court has the authority to order a terminating sanction as a first measure [citations], a terminating sanction should generally not be imposed until the court has attempted less severe alternatives and found them to be unsuccessful and/or the record clearly shows lesser sanctions would be ineffective.” (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604-605.)

B. Discussion

i. Terminating Sanctions

Defendants argue that this court is authorized to impose a terminating sanction against Plaintiff as Plaintiff has repeatedly demonstrated disregard for the discovery process, Plaintiff’s obligations under the Code of Civil Procedure, and this Court’s order. If a party fails to comply with a court order compelling discovery responses or attendance at a deposition, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions. Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (h) (depositions); § 2030.290, subd. (c) (interrogatories); § 2031.300, subd. (c) (demands for production of documents); § 2033.290, subd. (e) (requests for admission). 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, issue, evidence, or terminating] sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process . . .” Section 2023.010 provides that “[m]isuses 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. Hochman (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 [discussing cases]; see, e.g., Collisson & 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. McCutchen (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].)

Here, as noted in Defendants’ moving papers, this Court ordered Plaintiff to provide statutorily compliant, verified responses, without objection to Defendants’ propounded discovery on or before October 11, 2024. Despite that order, Defendants inform this Court that Plaintiff has failed to do so. However, this Court disagrees that the totality for the circumstances weigh in favor of granting a terminating sanction against Plaintiff at this stage. Plaintiff is currently unrepresented and has failed to comply with one of this court’s orders. This court is only inclined to grant terminating sanctions after a history of discovery abuse, and failure to comply with numerous court orders as it is an extreme and severe ruling. Presently, this court does not find

that such extreme and severe abuses exist. Thus, terminating sanctions are DENIED without prejudice.

ii. Monetary Sanctions

Despite this court finding that the current circumstances do not warrant terminating sanctions as against Plaintiff, this Court is inclined to order monetary sanctions as against Plaintiff for failure to comply with its previous discovery order. Defendants did not request an order for monetary sanctions in their Motions to Compel Initial Responses, nor in this present motion. However, this Court finds good cause to award monetary sanctions as against Plaintiff for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery obligations and this Court’s order. The Court imposes monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,000 to be paid to Defendants’ counsel on or before January 9, 2025. Failure to comply with this order will warrant this court to set an OSC RE: Failure to Comply with Court Orders and re why the court should not impose terminating sanctions.