Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 22STCV05622, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV05622    Hearing Date: August 10, 2023    Dept: 31

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for terminating sanctions striking Defendant’s answer is GRANTED.

The Court STRIKES Defendant Valaria Cruz’s answer.

Legal Standard

If a party fails to comply with a court order compelling a further response to a request for production, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (i).) 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

Plaintiff moves for terminating sanctions against Defendant on the ground that Defendant failed to comply with the Court's December 6, 2022 order compelling her to provide further responses to discovery.

On December 6, 2022, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and ordered Defendant to serve further responses within 30 days. (12/6/2022 Minute Order.) The Clerk sent Defendant notice of the Court ruling on the same day. (12/6/2022 Certificate of Mailing.) On January 3, 2023, Plaintiff sent Defendant a meet and confer letter. (Yaghoobia Decl., Exh. B.) Despite the Court’s December 6, 2022 Order, Defendant failed to respond to the discovery at issue.

The Court finds that Defendant has engaged in conduct that is an abuse of the discovery process in failing to comply with the Court’s December 6, 2022 order compelling further responses. Moreover, Defendant has not filed an opposition to indicate she will comply with her discovery obligations, or explain her failure to comply with the Court’s discovery order. Further, since Defendant has made no showing that she intends to comply with the discovery order, no lesser sanction than terminating sanctions will accomplish the purposes of discovery. As such, terminating sanctions striking Defendant’s answer is appropriate as it appears imposing less severe sanctions against Defendant would not produce compliance, and that Defendant is disinterested in prosecuting this case.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is denied, as the Court is imposing terminating sanctions and monetary sanctions would be unjust in these circumstances.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for terminating sanctions striking Defendant’s answer is GRANTED.

The Court STRIKES Defendant Valaria Cruz’s answer.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.