Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 21-1177302, Date: 2023-06-15 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff, Tina Monji’s motion for terminating sanctions against Defendant Ruben Flores (“Flores”) is GRANTED.

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 sec. 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 Flores in the form of an order striking Flores’s answer to the complaint based on the failure to comply with discovery orders issued on July 7, 2022 and January 5, 2023.  The Court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted here based on the history of Flores’s actions in this case.  Flores failed to respond to Plaintiff’s written discovery, failed to respond to the motions to compel regarding said discovery, and failed to obey multiple court orders to provide discovery responses and timely pay sanctions.  (See Francis Decl. and ROA 91, 129; 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 Flores’s “Response” filed on May 30, 2023, he fails to provide any substantial justification for his failure to comply with his discovery obligations and the Court’s orders and gives no indication that he has made any attempt to provide code compliant written responses to the subject discovery.  (See ROA 167.)

In addition, Flores did not appear at the motion hearings on July 7, 2022 and January 5, 2023.  (ROA 91, 129.)  Although Flores did (untimely) pay monetary sanctions in December 2022, there is no evidence that Flores made any effort over the last eleven months to comply with the orders to provide written discovery responses.

Flores misused the discovery process by failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery and then by failing to obey multiple court discovery orders.  Plaintiff contends that Flores’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 7:27-8:2.)  Based on all of Flores’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 as to Flores is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.