Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV26936, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV26936    Hearing Date: November 13, 2024    Dept: 29

Chow v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
21STCV26936
Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Monetary Sanctions

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On October 6, 2021, Denise Chow (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 10, asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of a motor vehicle accident occurring on April 19, 2021.

Defendant filed its answer on April 28, 2023.

Throughout this litigation, Plaintiff has violated her obligations under the Civil Discovery Act.

On May 26, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff with requests for admission.  Months went by and Plaintiff did not respond.  Defendant filed a motion for a deemed-admitted order.  Plaintiff did not oppose the motion but did, at the eleventh hour, serve responses.  The Court, on October 11, 2023, denied the request for a deemed-admitted order but granted Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and counsel.

On May 26, 2023, Defendant also served Plaintiff with form interrogatories.  Plaintiff did not respond.  Defendant filed a motion to compel, and Plaintiff did not oppose the motion or appear at the hearing.  The Court, on November 21, 2023, ordered Plaintiff to respond to the form interrogatories and sanctioned Plaintiff and counsel.

On May 26, 2023, Defendant also served Plaintiff with requests for production.  Plaintiff did not respond.  Defendant filed a motion to compel, and Plaintiff did not oppose the motion or appear at the hearing.  The Court, on November 22, 2023, ordered Plaintiff to respond to the document requests and sanctioned Plaintiff and counsel.

On May 26, 2023, Defendant also served Plaintiff with special interrogatories.  Plaintiff did not respond.  Defendant filed a motion to compel, and Plaintiff did not file an opposition or appear at the hearing.  The Court, on November 21, 2023, ordered Plaintiff to respond to the form interrogatories and sanctioned Plaintiff and counsel.

As of April 2024, Plaintiff had not complied with the Court’s discovery orders.  Defendant filed a motion for terminating sanctions and monetary sanctions.  Plaintiff did not file an opposition or appear at the hearing.  On June 11, 2024, the Court denied the request for terminating sanctions and granted the request for additional monetary sanctions.

As of early October 2024, Plaintiff still had not complied with the Court’s discovery orders. 

On October 9, 2024, Defendant filed this motion for terminating sanctions.

No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

When a plaintiff fails to obey an order compelling answers to interrogatories, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).  In lieu of or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)

When a plaintiff fails to obey an order compelling responses to requests for production, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).  In lieu of or in addition to, that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

In Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery Act, section 2023.030 provides for monetary, evidence, issue, and terminating sanctions for any “misuse of the discovery process,” “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title.”  A “misuse of the discovery process” is defined to include (among other things) failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery; making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive response to a discovery request; disobeying a court order to provide discovery; and making or opposing, unsuccessfully, a motion to compel without substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d)-(h).)

The Civil Discovery Act provides for an escalating and “incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.” (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.) Discovery sanctions should be appropriate to and commensurate with the misconduct, and they “should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.) “If a lesser sanction fails to curb misuse, a greater sanction is warranted: continuing misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally harsher sanctions until the sanction is reached that will curb the abuse.” (Ibid.; see also, e.g., Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280.) 

Terminating sanctions should be used sparingly. (Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 992; R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal. App. 4th 486, 496.) “Although in extreme cases a court has the authority to order a terminating sanction as a first measure, a terminating sanction should generally not be imposed until the court has attempted less severe alternatives and found them to be unsuccessful and/or the record clearly shows lesser sanctions would be ineffective.” (Lopez, supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 604.)  But where discovery violations are “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.” (Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 992.) Repeated and willful violations of discovery orders that prejudice the opposing party may warrant a terminating sanction. (Creed-21 v. City of Wildomar (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 690, 702; Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390; Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327; Lang v. Hachman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246; Collisson X Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622.)

The primary purpose of discovery sanctions is to obtain compliance with the Civil Discovery Act and the Court’s orders. It is not to punish. (Newland v. Super. Ct. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 613; Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle of Los Angeles (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 262.) A discovery sanction should not create a “windfall” for a party or place a party in a better position than it would have been if the opposing party had simply complied with its obligations under the Court’s orders and the Civil Discovery Act. (Rutledge v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1164, 1194; see also 2 Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2023), ¶¶ 8:2214-2220.)

It is “never justified” for a court to impose a terminating sanction “solely because of a failure to pay a monetary discovery sanction.”  (Newland, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at p. 615.)

Discussion

Plaintiff has violated her obligations under the Civil Discovery Act. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Orders of November 21, 2023, November 22, 2023, and November 27, 2023 to serve responses to written discovery.  Defendant served an initial set of discovery in May 2023 and even now – almost 18 months later – Defendant is still waiting for Plaintiff to respond.  The Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to the discovery almost a year ago, and Plaintiff has steadfastly refused to comply.

This is an extraordinary misuse of the discovery process.  Trial is less than one month away, and the Court finds that Plaintiff’s misuse of the discovery process has been overwhelmingly prejudicial to Defendant.  Defendant cannot meaningfully prepare for trial when Plaintiff has refused to provide any responses to even basic discovery requests.

The Court has, on five separate occasions, imposed monetary sanctions on Plaintiff and counsel.  These lesser sanctions have failed to bring Plaintiff into compliance with her obligations under the Civil Discovery Act and this Court’s Orders.

Plaintiff has been given every opportunity to comply with her obligations.  She has failed to do so.  The evidence here shows a long history and pattern of willful discovery abuse that has unfairly prejudiced Defendant.  Less severe sanctions have not been effective.  Plaintiff has not opposed this motion, and, indeed, has not opposed a motion or appeared at a court hearing in more than a year.

In light of the long pattern of willful misuse of the discovery process, the resulting unfair prejudice to Defendant, and the ineffectiveness of less severe sanctions, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions.

In light of the Court’s ruling on the motion for terminating sanctions, the request for further monetary sanctions is denied. 

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for terminating sanctions.

The Court ORDERS that the Complaint be and hereby is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice.