Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STCV07925, Date: 2023-10-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV07925    Hearing Date: January 23, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On April 11, 2023, Plaintiff Sarah M. Strandberg filed this action against Defendants Inmaung F&M Corporation and Chavalit Inmaung.

On October 10, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motions to compel discovery and ordered Defendants to serve verified responses, without objection, to Form Interrogatories – General, Form Interrogatories – Employment, and Request for Production, Set One within 30 days.

On November 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for terminating sanctions due to Defendants’ failure to comply with the Court’s October 10, 2023 discovery orders.  Defendants did not file an opposition.

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).)

According to Plaintiff, “Defendants willfully did not comply with the Court’s Order issued on October 10, 2023.”  (Jarvis Decl. ¶ 11.)  Plaintiff’s contacted Defendants’ counsel on November 9, 2023  to inquire if they were going to comply but got no response.  (Jarvis Decl. ¶ 12.)  Plaintiff’s counsel declares that defense counsel has been nonresponsive to all attempts to contact him since after the filing of Defendants’ Answer, and “Defendants have exhibited a consistent, willful lack of cooperation in providing straightforward information and willfully, consistently failed to meet and confer regarding both the case and discovery issues.”  (Jarvis Decl. ¶¶ 12, 14.)

Defendants’ failure to comply 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, Plaintiff filed this motion just 18 days after Defendants’ deadline to produce verified responses.  This case is only about 9.5 months old, and the trial date is over 6 months away.

Under the totality of the circumstances, Plaintiff has not shown a history of willful discovery abuse by Defendants, 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 WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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 23rd day of January 2024