Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 22STCV04635, Date: 2023-02-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04635    Hearing Date: February 9, 2023    Dept: 29

CASE NUMBER: 22STCV04635

[UNOPPOSED]

Motion for
Terminating Sanctions for Failure to Respond to Court Order filed by Defendant Starbucks Corporation

Background

On
February 7, 2022, Plaintiff Natalie Nguyen filed a complaint alleging that
Defendant created a health hazard for plaintiff by having employees
intentionally activated the Laser bar scanner and pointed directly to
plaintiff's eyes. This happened multiple times at different locations.

Plaintiff
filed a first amended complaint (FAC) on February 22, 2022, alleging a cause of
action for negligence. The FAC alleges that when Plaintiff approached the
drive-through window to pay, the cashier held the laser scanner (used to scan
customer’s phone for payment) and pointed the scanner directly to her face.
Seeing that she was not ready for payment, she continued to hold the scanner pointed
to her face for an extended time. Right after, Plaintiff’s eyes felt gritty and
she had extreme light sensitivity for the remaining of the day. She then had a
severe migraine for the day.

On November 15,
2022, Defendant’s motions to compel
Plaintiff to provide verified responses to form interrogatories (set one), and
request for production of documents (set one), were granted and sanctions were
imposed against Plaintiff.

On January 13,
2023, Defendant filed this motion for terminating sanctions. No opposition has
been filed.

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 moves
for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff on the ground that Plaintiff failed
to comply with the Court's November 15, 2022 order compelling her to respond to
discovery.

November 15, 2022, this Court granted Defendant’s Motions to
Compel and ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses to Form
Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents within 30 days.
(11/15/2022 Minute Order.) On November 17, 2022, Defendant served Plaintiff
with notice of the Court’s ruling. (Baxter Dec., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff sent an email
to defense counsel stating “see attached” and sent various miscellaneous pages
of her medical records, which (which does not constitute compliance with her
obligation to provide verified discovery responses). (Id., ¶ 9.) Despite the
Court’s November 15, 2022 Order, Plaintiff failed to provide verified responses
to the discovery. (Id.)

The Court finds
terminating sanctions dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant is
appropriate. Plaintiff has failed
to respond to discovery, failed to comply with the Court's order to
provide verified responses to discovery, and failed to oppose this motion for terminating sanctions.
Thus, it appears imposing less severe sanctions against Plaintiff would not
produce compliance, and that Plaintiff is disinterested in prosecuting this
case.

Conclusion

Based on the
foregoing, Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions dismissing Plaintiff’s
complaint against Defendant is GRANTED. The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s
complaint against Defendant Starbucks Corporation with prejudice.