Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV33412, Date: 2022-09-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV33412 Hearing Date: September 19, 2022 Dept: 29
Safeco Insurance Company
v. Jason Blanchard
TENTATIVE
Petitioner Safeco
Insurance Company of Illinois’ 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 1, 2022 order to comply with discovery.
On July 1, 2022, this Court granted Petitioner’s
motions and ordered Claimant to provide responses to form interrogatories,
special interrogatories, and requests for production of documents. The Court
also imposed sanctions against Claimant in the amount of $603. (7/1/22 Minute
Order.) On July 7, 2022, Petitioner filed and served Claimant with a Notice of
Ruling of the foregoing Court ruling. (Foreman Decl., ¶ 15; Exh. B.) To date, Claimant
has not provided responses to the discovery at issue, or paid sanctions. (Id., ¶
16.)
The Court finds a terminating sanction 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.