Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 21-1177302, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff, Tina Monji’s unopposed motion for terminating and/or monetary sanctions against Defendants Visionscape, Inc. (“Visionscape”) and Ruben Flores (“Flores”) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Sanctions are warranted when there are “[m]isuses of the discovery process,” such as “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery” or “[d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery.”  (C.C.P. §§ 2023.010; 2023.030.)

C.C.P. §§ 2030.290(c) [re interrogatories] and 2031.300(c) [re request for production] provide that if a party fails to obey an order compelling discovery responses, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction, and/or monetary sanctions.  (See also, Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992 [discussing terminating sanctions].)

Plaintiff seeks terminating sanctions against Visionscape and Flores in the form of an order striking defendants’ answer to the complaint based on the failure to comply with four discovery orders.  Three of the discovery orders were issued against Visionscape (ROA 39, 54, 75).  One order was issued against Flores (ROA 91).  The Court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted here against Visionscape only based on the history of Visionscape’s actions in this case.  Visionscape failed to respond to Plaintiff’s written discovery, failed to respond to the motions to compel regarding said discovery, failed to obey multiple court orders to provide discovery responses and timely pay sanctions, and failed to respond to the present motion for terminating sanctions.  (See Francis Decl. and ROA 39, 54, 75; see also, Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495.)  Although some documents have been produced to Plaintiff, there is no indication that verified code compliant responses to any of the outstanding discovery have been served.

In addition, Visionscape did not appear at the motions to compel hearings on October 28, 2021 and February 10, 2022.  (ROA 54, 75.)  Visionscape was served with notice of the Court’s orders on August 12, 2021 (see ROA 41), October 28, 2021 (see ROA 53), and February 10, 2022 (see ROA 74).  Although Visionscape did produce Ruben Flores for deposition and did very recently pay the monetary sanctions, there is no evidence that Visionscape made any effort over the last ten months to comply with the orders to provide written discovery responses.  Visionscape also failed to file an opposition brief for the present motion.

Visionscape misused the discovery process by failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery and then by failing to obey three court discovery orders.  Plaintiff contends that Visionscape’s inaction has prevented her from obtaining facts and documents central to her claims and deprived her of the information needed to prepare for trial.  (Mtn at 6:21-24.)  Based on all of Visionscape’s actions in the case, it appears to the Court that no lesser sanction than a terminating sanction will protect Plaintiff’s interests in the litigation.  Accordingly, the motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED as to Visionscape.

Visionscape’s Answer to Complaint is ordered stricken.  (C.C.P. § 2023.030(d).)  The clerk of the court is directed to enter default of Visionscape on Plaintiff’s Complaint.

As to Flores, while this Motion is unopposed, there has been only one discovery order issued against Flores (see ROA 91).  Flores’s conduct thus far does not appear so egregious that terminating sanctions are warranted against him at this stage.  Thus, Plaintiff’s request for terminating sanctions as to Flores is DENIED.  However, the Court finds that further monetary sanctions against Flores is warranted.  The Court imposes a reasonable monetary sanction of $1,410 against Flores, payable to Plaintiff within 15 days after service of notice of this order.  (C.C.P. § 2023.030(a).)

In addition, Flores is cautioned that should he continue to withhold discovery responses and again fail to abide by the court’s orders, terminating sanctions will be the next step.

Counsel for moving party is to give notice.