Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV46204, Date: 2023-09-19 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT  (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE.  4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020) 

IMPORTANT:  In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely.  The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited.  The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants. 

ALSO NOTE:  If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar.  THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 20STCV46204    Hearing Date: September 19, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE 

Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions is DENIED.

Background

This case arises from an automobile accident that occurred on December 4, 2018, on Pico Boulevard in Los Angeles, California.

On December 2, 2020, Plaintiff Timothy Magarci (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Rachel Helena Kann (“Defendant”) and Does 1 to 50 alleging injuries and damages as a result of the accident.

In July 2022, Defendant served Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One) on Plaintiff.  Plaintiff never responded. 

In January 2023, the Court granted the motion of Plaintiff’s counsel to be relieved as counsel.

On July 3, 2023, this Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One).  Plaintiff was ordered to serve responses within 30 days of notice of the order.  Notice was sent by mail to Plaintiff’s address on either July 10 or July 11, 2023.

Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s order.

On August 18, 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 on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s Order of July 3, 2023, compelling Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests.

The evidence before the Court shows that Plaintiff has disobeyed a clear court order to provide responses to the interrogatories and document requests.  The Court’s issuance of an order against Plaintiff in July 2023 has not been sufficient to bring Plaintiff into compliance with his obligations under the Civil Discovery Act.

A substantial sanction against Plaintiff is warranted for his violation of the Court’s order.  Here, however, Defendant does not seek a monetary sanction, an evidentiary sanction, or an issue sanction.  Instead requests only the most severe sanction, a terminating sanction.

On this record, the Court finds that there is no sufficient basis for a terminating sanction.  A terminating sanction is a drastic remedy that is generally reserved for the most extreme cases of repeated, willful violations, which the record does not at this time show.  In addition, discovery sanctions should not be imposed in a manner that would put the party seeking discovery in a better position than they would be in if they had received timely responses.  (Rutledge v. Hewlett-Packard (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1164, 1194.)  And yet, this is precisely what Defendant seeks here: Defendant would be in a far better position with a terminating sanction than she would have been with a timely and code-complaint set of responses.  Although Plaintiff’s conduct warrants a significant sanction, which could escalate if violations continue, Defendant has not yet demonstrated that a terminating sanction is justified in this matter.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion for a terminating sanction and dismissal of the case is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.