Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV04515, Date: 2022-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV04515    Hearing Date: August 3, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On February 4, 2020, plaintiff Rita Marie Letizia Schneider (“Ms. Schneider”), individually and as the successor-in-interest and personal representative of the estate of Lawrence William Schneider (“Decedent”) filed this action against defendants Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (“Jaguar”) and Galpin Jaguar Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. (“Galpin”).  On December 10, 2020, Ms. Schneider filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which added Decedent’s son, Chase Schneider (“Chase”), as an individual plaintiff and as Decedent’s successor-in-interest.

On May 17, 2022, the Court ordered Chase to provide further responses to Galpin’s Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Admissions (Set One), and Requests for Production of Documents (Set One).  Further responses were to be served and sanctions in the amount of $3,440 were to be paid by Chase (not counsel) within 20 days.  Galpin served a notice of ruling on May 18, 2022 by overnight mail. 

On July 5, 2022, Galpin filed this motion for terminating sanctions after Chase failed to serve further responses or pay sanctions. 

Where a party fails to obey an order compelling answers to discovery, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.”  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2023.010, subd. (c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.)  The 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 failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery or disobeying a court order to provide discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (g).)  A terminating sanction may be imposed by an order dismissing part or all of the action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d)(3).) 

The court should consider the totality of the circumstances, including 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 discovery.  (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.)  If a lesser sanction fails to curb abuse, a greater sanction is warranted.  (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.)  However, “the unsuccessful imposition of a lesser sanction is not an absolute prerequisite to the utilization of the ultimate sanction.”  (Deyo v. Killbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 787.)  Terminating sanctions should not be ordered lightly, but are justified where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and there is evidence that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules.  (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.)

Before any sanctions may be imposed the court must make an express finding that there has been a willful failure of the party to serve the required answers.  (Fairfield v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 113, 118.)  Lack of diligence may be deemed willful where the party understood its obligation, had the ability to comply, and failed to comply.  (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 787; Fred Howland Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 605, 610-611.)  The party who failed to comply with discovery obligations has the burden of showing that the failure was not willful.  (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 788; Cornwall v. Santa Monica Dairy Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 250; Evid. Code, §§ 500, 605.)

Chase filed no opposition to this Motion and it is undisputed he failed to serve further responses to discovery, failed to pay monetary sanctions, and disobeyed a court order to do so.  Galpin served a Notice of Ruling on Chase.  Therefore, the Court concludes Chase knew of his discovery obligations, knew of the court order compelling his compliance, and failed to show his noncompliance was not willful.  Given Chase’s failure to comply with his discovery obligations, failure to meet and confer with defense counsel or attend any informal discovery conferences, and apparent disinterest in prosecuting this action, the Court finds lesser sanctions would not curb the abuse.

Accordingly, Galpin’s Motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED and Chase’s claims against Galpin in this action are hereby dismissed. 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.