Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV03072, Date: 2023-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03072    Hearing Date: February 27, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On January 29, 2024, Defendant Irene Chen, M.D. filed a motion for terminating sanctions due to Plaintiff Mehrnaz Hadian failing to provide discovery responses pursuant to the Court’s December 12, 2023 order.  Plaintiff did not file an opposition.  On February 20, 2024, Defendant filed a supplemental declaration.

A court may impose a terminating sanction against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).)  Misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond to discovery, unjustifiably making unmeritorious objections to discovery, and disobeying a court order to provide discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)  “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.’  [Citation.]  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, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390 (Los Defensores).)

On December 12, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses to Form Interrogatories, (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Demand for Production of Documents (Set One) within 30 days.  Plaintiff did not timely serve responses.  (Valoff Decl. ¶¶ 3-5.)  According to Defendant, “Plaintiff has demonstrated she is not interested in prosecuting her case or complying with Court orders,” and she requests that the matter against her be dismissed with prejudice.  (Valoff Decl. ¶ 8.)

Defendant’s supplemental declaration states that Plaintiff served responses on February 13, 2024—about a month after the Court-ordered deadline, and about two weeks after Defendant filed this motion.  (Valoff Suppl. Decl. ¶ 10.)

Plaintiff’s month-long delay in complying with a single order to produce discovery does not demonstrate a history of abuse that justifies “the ultimate sanction.”  (See Los Defensores, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390.)  Additionally, this case is only about one year old, and no trial date has been set.

Under the totality of the circumstances, Defendant has not shown a history of willful discovery abuse by Plaintiff, and the Court cannot find that less severe sanctions would be ineffective and that terminating sanctions are warranted.

The motion for terminating sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 27th day of February 2024