Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 19STCV38889, Date: 2022-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV38889    Hearing Date: August 22, 2022    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendants Mercy Cendana and Teresita Nailong’s motion for terminating sanctions against Plaintiffs is GRANTED. The case is dismissed with prejudice.

Legal Standard

CCP 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, evidence, and terminating] sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process...." CCP section 2023.010 provides that "[m]issues 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. Hachman (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); see, e.g., Collisson X 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. McCucchen (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).)

Discussion

Defendants move for terminating sanctions against Plaintiffs, on the ground that Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Court's February 17, 2022 order to comply with discovery.

On February 17, 2022, this Court granted Defendants’ motions and ordered Plaintiffs to provide responses to form interrogatories and requests for production of documents. The Court also imposed sanctions against Plaintiffs in the amount of $600. (2/7/22 Minute Order.) On February 23, 2022, Defendants filed and served Plaintiffs with a Notice of Ruling of the foregoing Court ruling. (Giudice-Hu Decl. ¶ 3.) To date, Plaintiffs have not provided responses to the discovery at issue. (Id., ¶ 4.)

The Court finds terminating sanctions action against Plaintiffs is appropriate. Plaintiffs havae failed to respond to discovery, failed to comply with the Court's order to respond to discovery, and failed to oppose this motion for terminating sanctions. Thus, it appears imposing less severe sanctions against Plaintiffs would not produce compliance, and that Plaintiffs are disinterested in pursuing this case.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions against Plaintiffs is GRANTED. The Court dismisses the complaint with prejudice.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.