Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STVC24025, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STVC24025 Hearing Date: November 6, 2024 Dept: 29
Tyler v. Short
21STVC24025
Defendants’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions
Tentative
The motion is denied.
Background
On June 29,
2021, Alexis Tyler and Kyra Eleri (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint
against Stacia Short, Ramon Baguio, Bianca Baguio, and Does 1 through 50,
asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising
out of an alleged automobile accident on September 19, 2019.
On September 21, 2022, Ramon Baguio and Bianca Baguio (collectively
“Defendants”) filed an answer.
On September 3, 2024, the Court granted Defendants’ motions to
compel and ordered each of the Plaintiffs to appear for deposition. The Court also ordered Plaintiff and counsel
of record to pay sanctions.
Plaintiffs did not appear for deposition. (Bekaryan Decl., ¶ 10.) They did offer alternative dates prior to the
deadline set by the Court, but Defendants’ counsel was not available. (Id., ¶ 9 & Exh. C.)
On October 8,
2024, Defendants filed this motion for terminating sanctions.
No opposition has
been filed.
Legal Standard
When a party fails to obey an order compelling attendance at a
deposition, “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., § 2025.450, subd. (h).)
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
Plaintiffs
have failed to obey the Court’s order compelling them to appear for their
depositions, and they have violated their obligations under the Civil Discovery
Act. This is serious misuse of the
discovery process that merits serious sanctions.
Defendants
ask for terminating sanctions.
For terminating sanctions, a party must
present evidence of repeated and willful misuse of the discovery process, as
well as evidence that less severe sanctions have
not (or likely will not) lead to compliance with the discovery rules. Defendants have not, on this record at this
time, made such a showing. There has not been a showing of a history or pattern of
willful abuse or repeated violations that have not been (or cannot be) cured by
lesser sanctions.
Moreover, 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, supra, 238
Cal.App.4th at p. 1194.)
Here, at this time, a terminating sanction
would create such a windfall for Defendants.
Accordingly,
Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions is denied.
Defendants
do not seek any lesser sanctions in this motion.
Conclusion
The
Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions.