Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 20STCV12587 2022-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV12587, Date: 2022-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV12587 Hearing Date: August 15, 2022 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant Majestic Industry Hills, LLC’s motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant City of Industry’s joinder to the motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED. The court orders this action dismissed against Defendant Majestic Industry Hills, LLC, and Defendant City of Industry.

The request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

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

Defendant Majestic Industry Hills, LLC moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff on the ground that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's June 1, 2022 order to appear for deposition and pay monetary sanctions.

On June 1, 2022, this Court granted Defendant Majestic Industry Hills, LLC’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition, ordered Plaintiff to appear for deposition, and imposed sanctions in the amount of $717.95 on Plaintiff. (6/1/22 Minute Order.) On June 2, 2022, Defendant filed and served Plaintiff with a Notice of Ruling of the foregoing Court ruling. Defendant served on Plaintiff a second amended notice of taking deposition, scheduled for July 1, 2022. (Lewis Decl., ¶ 7.) Defendant attempted to contact Plaintiff by phone and email but received no response. (Id.) Plaintiff again failed to appear for deposition. (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has not appeared for deposition and the payment for the sanctions has not been made. (Id. ¶ 8-9.)

The Court finds terminating sanctions action against Plaintiff is appropriate. Plaintiff has failed to appear for deposition, failed to comply with the Court's order to appear for deposition, failed to oppose this motion for terminating sanctions, and failed to pay monetary sanctions imposed against Plaintiff. Thus, it appears imposing less severe sanctions against Plaintiff would not produce compliance, and that Plaintiff is disinterested in prosecuting his case.

As the motion for terminating sanctions is granted, imposing monetary sanctions would be unjust. Thus, the request for monetary sanctions is denied.

Joinder

Although Defendant Majestic Industry Hills, LLC is the one who propounded the discovery, the Court can impose the terminating sanctions on Plaintiff with regards to Defendant City of Industry, even if only one Defendant propounded the discovery, if the court finds it just and that the discovery interests of the Defendant propounding discovery and the other Defendant is closely aligned. (Parker v. Wolters Kluwer United States, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 285, 301.) “[T]here can be circumstances in which the discovery interests of the propounding party and a co-party are so closely aligned it would be a useless duplication of effort for both parties to pursue the same discovery and invoke the same remedies against an opposing party.” (Id.) Thus, “[i]t is up to the trial court in the exercise of its discretion to determine whether in a particular case the interests of the propounding party and a co-party are sufficiently aligned so that a sanction award to both would be just.” (Id. at 301-302 [emphasis added].)

Here, Defendant City of Industry’s interests are closely aligned with Defendant Majestic Industry Hills because this case stems from the same incident where Plaintiff was allegedly injured when a fence fell onto him, and Plaintiff asserts the same causes of action against both Defendants. Based on that, both Defendants were prejudiced by Plaintiff’s failure to appear for deposition. Moreover, Defendant City of Industry’s counsel was also present at the deposition when Plaintiff failed to appear.

As such, because both defendants’ discovery interests are closely aligned, Defendant City of Industry’s joinder to the motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Majestic Industry Hills, LLC’s motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant City of Industry’s joinder to the motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED. The court orders this action dismissed against Defendant Majestic Industry Hills, LLC, and Defendant City of Industry. The request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.