TENTATIVE

Defendants Julio Cesar Ramos-Ramon and J and A Transport Inc.’s motion for terminating sanctions dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint is DENIED as moot. 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

Defendants move for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff on the ground that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's July 15, 2022 order compelling her to respond to discovery and pay monetary sanctions.

On July 15, 2022, this Court granted Defendants’ Motions to Compel and ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents within 30 days, and to pay sanctions in the amount of $680 within 30 days of the order. (7/15/2022 Minute Order.) Defendant served notice of the Court’s Order on July 15, 2022. Despite the Court’s Order, Plaintiff failed to respond to discovery or pay sanctions.

In opposition, Plaintiff contends she provided verified responses on June 20, 2022, before the Court’s hearing. Plaintiff argues she was unavailable and out of communication with her counsel due to familial obligations and was delayed in providing verifications to her responses. Plaintiff is trying to gather the resources to make the payment of the sanctions but requires additional time.

In reply, Defendants concede that they received responses to the discovery on August 29, 2022, when Plaintiff’s counsel contacted them and claimed to have sent the responses on June 20, 2022. Counsel sent the discovery by email. However, Defendants argue Plaintiff has still not paid sanctions. The failure to pay monetary sanctions is not a misuse of discovery and the failure to pay monetary sanctions alone is not grounds to impose terminating sanctions. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal. App. 4th 608, 615).  Instead, orders imposing monetary sanctions have the force and effect of a money judgment, and are immediately enforceable through the enforcement of judgment laws. (Id.)

As such, because Plaintiff has responded to the court ordered discovery, Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions is denied as moot.

Monetary sanctions are denied as Plaintiff has complied with the Court’s order.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant is DENIED as moot. The request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.