Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV43991, Date: 2023-06-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV43991 Hearing Date: September 14, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Defendant Dennis Evans’ motion for evidentiary
sanctions is GRANTED.
Defendant’s request for monetary
sanctions is GRANTED.
Defendants’ request for other
sanctions, including terminating sanctions, is DENIED.
Background
On November 17,
2020, Plaintiff Martin Antonio Samaniego (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against
Defendant Dennis Evans (Defendant) and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, alleging
causes of action for (1) motor vehicle and (2) general negligence, stemming
from vehicle collision that occurred on January 29, 2019.
Defendant filed
his answer on May 9, 2022. On the same
day, Defendant served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request
for Production (Set One).
On September 27,
2022, the Court granted the motion of Plaintiff’s counsel to be relieved. Plaintiff has been self-represented since
then.
On October 17,
2022, Defendant served Plaintiff with Requests for Admission (Set One).
Plaintiff never
responded to any of the discovery served by Defendant. At a hearing on June 29, 2023, the Court
granted Defendant’s motion to deem admitted the matters in the Requests for
Admission and the motions to compel responses to the interrogatories and
requests for production; responses were due within 30 days. The Court also issued monetary sanctions
against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,260, due within 30 days.
Plaintiff still has not responded to the
interrogatories and the requests for production. Nor has he paid the sanctions.
On August 7, 2023, Defendant filed this motion for
terminating sanctions or in the alternative, issue, evidence and/or monetary
sanctions. No opposition has been filed.
Legal
Standard
Code of Civil
Procedure 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...." 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 Court is
authorized to impose issue sanctions, evidentiary sanctions, terminating
sanctions, and/or monetary sanctions against a party who fails to obey a court
order compelling responses to interrogatories or document requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c)).
"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 for failing to comply with the
Court's June 29, 2023 order to provide responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set One) and Request for
Production of Documents (Set One).
Defendant also requests the Court dismiss him from this action with prejudice.
Alternatively,
Defendant moves for (1) issue and evidentiary sanctions prohibiting Plaintiff
from supporting his allegation that Defendant is liable for the incident giving
rise to this present case and claims for wage loss, loss of earning capacity,
property damage, loss of use of property, general damages, hospital expenses,
medical expenses, pain and mental suffering, and other damages; and (2) an
order requiring Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,480.00
to Defendant or his counsel of record, Leach and McGreevy, LLP.
The evidence
before the Court shows that Plaintiff has disobeyed a clear court order to
provide responses to form interrogatories and document requests. Substantial sanctions against Plaintiff are
appropriate for his violation of the Court’s order. The Court’s issuance of monetary sanctions
against Plaintiff in June 2023 has not been sufficient to bring Plaintiff into
compliance with his obligations under the Civil Discovery Act.
On this record,
the Court finds that it is appropriate to issue evidentiary sanctions against Plaintiff. Having reviewed the substance of the
discovery requests propounded to Plaintiff, the Court bars Plaintiff from
presenting, at or before the time of trial, any testimony or documentary
evidence relating to any of the following: (1) any claim that Plaintiff
received any treatment from any health care provider (and/or paid for, or
incurred any obligation to pay for, any such treatment) as a result of the
incident; and (2) any claim that Plaintiff has in the past lost, is currently
losing, or will in the future lose any income as a result of the incident.
The Court also
orders Plaintiff to pay further and additional monetary sanctions to Defendant
in connection with this motion in the amount of $1,635, calculated based on 3.5
hours of attorney time, multiplied by counsel’s billing rate of $450 per hour,
plus the $60 filing fee. (See Leach
Decl., ¶¶ 12-13.)
The Court has carefully
considered Defendant’s request for terminating sanctions and denies that
request at this time.
First, Plaintiff’s compliance with the Court’s
order to pay monetary sanctions¿is not relevant to the Court’s determination as
to whether terminating sanctions¿should be imposed. (See Newland v.
Superior Court¿(1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 610, 615 (finding a court may not
issue a terminating sanction for failure to pay a monetary discovery
sanction).) A monetary sanction order is enforceable as a money judgment
under the Enforcement of Judgments Law, California Code of Civil Procedure
sections 680.010, et seq. (Id.¿at p. 615.)
Second, a
terminating sanction is a drastic remedy that is appropriate only in the
extreme case. Discovery sanctions are
meant to enforce the obligations of the Civil Discovery Act, not to punish or
to place the propounding party in a better position that he would be in if he
had received timely responses. Although
Plaintiff’s conduct merits substantial sanctions, Defendant has not yet
demonstrated that a terminating sanction is justified in this matter.
To the extent that
Defendant requests other sanctions or relief, that request is denied.
Conclusion
Based on the
foregoing, Defendant’s request for evidentiary sanctions is GRANTED in part, as
set forth above.
Defendant’s
request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,635 is GRANTED. Sanctions must be paid within 30 days of the
date of service of this Order.
Defendant’s other
requests are DENIED at this time.
Moving party is
ordered to give notice.