Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV28901, Date: 2023-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV28901    Hearing Date: January 12, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Petitioner Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company’s motion for terminating sanctions against Claimant is GRANTED.

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

Petitioner moves for terminating sanctions against Claimant, on the ground that Claimant has failed to comply with the Court's July 21, 2022 order to comply with discovery.

On July 21, 2022, this Court granted Petitioner’s motions and ordered Claimant to provide responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents. (7/21/22 Minute Order.) On August 16, 2022, Petitioner filed and served Claimant with a Notice of Ruling of the foregoing Court ruling. (Farazian Decl., ¶ 8; Exh. A.) To date, Claimant has not provided responses to the discovery at issue. (Id., ¶ 9.)

The Court finds terminating sanctions dismissing the action against Claimant is appropriate. Claimant has 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 Claimant would not produce compliance, and that Claimant is disinterested in pursuing this case.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s motion for terminating sanctions against Claimant is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.