Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 21STCV03512, Date: 2022-08-24 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing.  Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING.  The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

Case Number: 21STCV03512    Hearing Date: August 24, 2022    Dept: 51

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   August 24, 2022                                             

CASE NAME:            Esonie Cain v. Centinela Hospitalist Medical Group Inc. et al

CASE NO.:                21STCV03512

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Angie Freeman

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of August 19, 2022

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      An order granting terminating sanctions,

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED.

2.      Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On January 28, 2021, Plaintiff Esonie Cain (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Centinela Hospitalist Medical Gropu Inc. (“Defendant”). The complaint was for two causes of action: (1) Defamation per se and (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was visiting her mother at Centinel Hospital Medical Center when she was disparaged by an employee, Defendant Angie, who was a nurse. Defendant Angie falsely accused her of being meddlesome and prevented her from visiting her mother.

Plaintiff filed an Amendment to the Complaint, ficitious name, adding Prime Healthcare Centinela, LLC, dba Centinela Hospital Medical Center as Doe 1 and Angie Freeman as Doe 2.

On May 11, 2021, Defendant Prime Healthcare Centinela, LLC filed an Answer.

On August 25, 2021, Defendant Angie Freeman filed an Answer.

On September 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Substitution of Attorney, and became self-represented.

On October 13, 2021, Defendants filed motions to compel form interrogatories, special interrogatories, request for production and request for admissions.

On February 3, 2022, the Court granted each of Defendants’ motion to compel, deemed the admissions deemed trued and ordered Plaintiff to file responses and produce documents by March 11, 2022, without objection. Plaintiff did not file an opposition and did not appear at the hearing.

On May 10, 2022, Defendants each filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions. No opposition has been filed as of August 19, 2022. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence, or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (g), 2025.450, subd. (h); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.)  An evidence sanction prohibits a party that misused the discovery process from introducing evidence on certain designated matters into evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (c).) Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules.  (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.)  “[A] penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.”  (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.)  The court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders: 

(1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process. 

(2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed. 

(3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party. 

(4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party. 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) 

ANALYSIS:

Defendant Angie Freeman moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff, based on discovery abuse and failure to comply with a court order.

Discovery responses were served on Plaintiff on August 25, 2021, with responses due on September 28, 2021. After Plaintiff failed to respond, Defendant filed a motion to compel, which was granted by this Court. Responses, without objections, were due on March 11, 2022. Additionally, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to deem admissions admitted on February 3, 2022.

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.” Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App..4th 377, 390.) Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders. (Id.) Terminating sanctions are to be used sparingly because of the drastic effect of their application. (Department of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 154, 191.)

If, however, if 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.” (Creed-21 v. City of Wildomar (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 690, 702.)

The court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted for Plaintiff’s persistent non-compliance. Despite notice of the Court’s order, Plaintiff did not comply. Given the notice provided, the Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s February 3, 2022 order to be willful. Furthermore, although Plaintiff was properly served with the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions, no opposition has been filed. It seems that Plaintiff has abandoned interest in prosecuting her claims. Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s numerous meet and confer correspondence, file an opposition for the prior motions to compel or even make an appearance at the hearing on the motion.

Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, the above evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff’s compliance with the Court’s orders cannot be achieved through lesser sanctions. Monetary sanctions were previously awarded on February 3, 2022 and remain unpaid. (Motion, Sulentor Decl., ¶9.) As such, an additional award of monetary sanctions would be futile.

Indeed, it appears that Plaintiff has no intention of complying with the Court’s orders or prosecuting the claims against Defendant. “The court [is] not required to allow a pattern of abuse to continue ad infinitum.” (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 280.)

Sanctions:

Under CCP § 2030.290 and § 2031.300, if a party fails to provide responses to interrogatories or demands for inspection, the court shall impose sanctions. Here, Defendant requests $1,985.00 for this motion based on four hours of work at $275 an hour and an additionally 3 hours in anticipation of the hearing. The request for sanctions is DENIED

Conclusion:

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

Defendants Angie Freeman’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT HEREBY DISMISSES PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.

Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED.

            Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             August 24, 2022                      _________________________________                                                                                                                  Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Prime Healthcare Centinela, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of August 19, 2022

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      An order granting terminating sanctions,

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED.

2.      Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On January 28, 2021, Plaintiff Esonie Cain (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Centinela Hospitalist Medical Gropu Inc. (“Defendant”). The complaint was for two causes of action: (1) Defamation per se and (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was visiting her mother at Centinel Hospital Medical Center when she was disparaged by an employee, Defendant Angie, who was a nurse. Defendant Angie falsely accused her of being meddlesome and prevented her from visiting her mother.

Plaintiff filed an Amendment to the Complaint, ficitious name, adding Prime Healthcare Centinela, LLC, dba Centinela Hospital Medical Center as Doe 1 and Angie Freeman as Doe 2.

On May 11, 2021, Defendant Prime Healthcare Centinela, LLC filed an Answer.

On August 25, 2021, Defendant Angie Freeman filed an Answer.

On September 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Substitution of Attorney, and became self-represented.

On February 1, 2022, the Court granted each of Defendants’ motion to compel, deemed the admissions deemed trued and ordered Plaintiff to file responses and produce documents by March 11, 2022, without objection. Plaintiff did not file an opposition and did not appear at the hearing.

On May 10, 2022, Defendants each filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions. No opposition has been filed as of August 19, 2022.  

LEGAL STANDARD

Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence, or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (g), 2025.450, subd. (h); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.)  An evidence sanction prohibits a party that misused the discovery process from introducing evidence on certain designated matters into evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (c).) Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules.  (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.)  “[A] penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.”  (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.)  The court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders: 

(1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process. 

(2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed. 

(3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party. 

(4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party. 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) 

ANALYSIS:

Defendant Prime Healthcare Centinela, LLC moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff, based on discovery abuse and failure to comply with a court order.

Discovery responses were served on July 14, 2021, with responses due on August 31, 2021. After Plaintiff failed to respond, Defendant filed a motion to compel, which was granted by this Court. Responses, without objections, were due on March 11, 2022.

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.” Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App..4th 377, 390.) Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders. (Id.). Terminating sanctions are to be used sparingly because of the drastic effect of their application. (Department of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 154, 191.)

If, however, if 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.” (Creed-21 v. City of Wildomar (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 690, 702).

The court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted for Plaintiff’s persistent non-compliance. Despite notice of the Court’s order, Plaintiff did not comply. Given the notice provided, the Court finds Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s February 1, 2022 order to be willful. Furthermore, although Plaintiff was properly served with the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions, no opposition has been filed. It seems that Plaintiff has abandoned interest in prosecuting her claims. Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s numerous meet and confer correspondence, file an opposition for the prior motions to compel or even make an appearance at the hearing on the motion.

Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, the above evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff’s compliance with the Court’s orders cannot be achieved through lesser sanctions. Monetary sanctions were previously awarded on February 1, 2022 and remain unpaid. (Motion, Sulentor Decl., ¶9.) As such, an additional award of monetary sanctions would be futile.

Indeed, it appears that Plaintiff has no intention of complying with the Court’s orders or prosecuting the claims against Defendant. “The court [is] not required to allow a pattern of abuse to continue ad infinitum.” (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 280.)

Sanctions:

Under CCP § 2030.290 and § 2031.300, if a party fails to provide responses to interrogatories or demands for inspection, the court shall impose sanctions. Here, Defendant requests $1,985.00 for this motion based on four hours of work at $275 an hour and an additionally 3 hours in anticipation of the hearing. The request for sanctions is DENIED

Conclusion:

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

            Defendants Prime Healthcare Centinela, LLC’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT HEREBY DISMISSES PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE.           Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             August 24, 2022                      _________________________________                                                                                                                  Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court