Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV30835, Date: 2022-07-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV30835    Hearing Date: July 25, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On August 19, 2021, Plaintiff Nikita Mac (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Laura Burnett (“Defendant”) for negligence.

On January 5, 2022, Defendant filed an answer.

On April 8, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s two motions to compel on the condition that Defendant pays an additional filing fee and notifies the Court and Plaintiff of the payment.

On June 21, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions to be heard on July 25, 2022. 

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

“The court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders:

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

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

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

An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.”

(CCP § 2023.030(d).) 

The Court may impose terminating sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Id.)  Misuse of the discovery process includes failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery or disobeying a court order to provide discovery.  (Id. §§ 2023.010(d), (g).)  The court should look to the totality of the circumstances in determining whether terminating sanctions are appropriate.  (See Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1229.)  “[W]here 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.’  [Citation.]”  (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 39.)

III.      DISCUSSION

Defendant requests the Court impose terminating sanctions on Plaintiff for failure to comply with the Court’s April 8, 2022, orders. Defendant served written discovery on Plaintiff on January 5, 2022; after Plaintiff failed to provide timely respsonses, Defendant filed motions to compel. On April 8, 2022, the Court granted the motions and ordered Plaintiff to serve verfied discovery responses, without objections, within 60 days of Defendant’s notice that the filing fee has been paid. of Defendant’s filing fee. Notice was served on April 11, 2022, with a copy of the receipt attached.

Plaintiff has not provided discovery. Nor has Plaintiff opposed this motion, or even provided any explanation of the failure to comply with the Court’s order.

Terminating sanctions are only to be awarded when a violation is willfull, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance. As Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, has not complied with the Court’s April 8, 2022, order, responded to this motion, or provided any explanation for the non-compliance, the Court has no basis to conclude other than that Plaintiff has lost interest in this litigation. Accordingly, the Court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted.

IV.      CONCLUSION

Defendant LAURA BURNETT’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED.

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’s 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.