Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: BC694236, Date: 2022-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC694236    Hearing Date: September 21, 2022    Dept: 29

Marvin Cano, et al. v. Amber Nicole Millerlee

Motion for Terminating Sanctions filed by Plaintiffs Marvin Cano, Lori Herrera, Natalie Zapien, Aaron Cano, and Leslie Herrera  

TENTATIVE

Plaintiffs’ motion for terminating sanctions rendering judgment by default on Defendant is GRANTED. The Court STRIKES Defendant Amber Nicole Millerlee’s answer.

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

Plaintiff moves for terminating sanctions against Defendant Millerlee, rendering judgment by default, on the ground that Defendant failed to comply with the Court's August 26, 2021 order to comply with discovery, and the Court’s June 14, 2022 order to pay monetary sanctions.

On August 26, 2021, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel and ordered Defendant to serve verified responses to the Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents without objection, within 20 days. (Joseph Decl. ¶ 8 Exh. B.) Plaintiffs served notice of the Court’s August 26, 2021 Order on August 31, 2021. (Id., Exh. C.) On or about June 14, 2022, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for monetary sanctions for failing to comply with the Court’s order to respond to discovery. (Id., ¶ 11; Exh. E.) On the same day, Plaintiff served Defendant with notice of the court’s ruling granting Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant. (Id., ¶ 11, Exh. F.) Despite the Court’s August 26, 2021 Order, Defendant failed to respond to discovery. (Id., ¶ 8.) Defendant has also failed to pay sanctions as ordered by this Court on June 14, 2022. (Id., ¶ 11.)

The Court finds terminating sanctions action against Defendant appropriate. Defendant has failed to respond to discovery, failed to comply with the Court's order to respond to discovery, failed to oppose this motion for terminating sanctions, and failed to pay monetary sanctions imposed against Defendant. Thus, it appears imposing less severe sanctions against Defendant would not produce compliance, and that Defendant is uninterested in defending this case.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion for terminating sanctions  is GRANTED. The Court STRIKES Defendant Amber Nicole Millerlee’s answer.  Plaintiff may proceed with entry of default and default judgment.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.