Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV39922, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV39922    Hearing Date: December 8, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On October 29, 2021, Plaintiffs Humberto Abram Altamirano (“Altamirano”) and Nicole Bonacio (“Bonacio”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant Jose De Jesus Aguayo Villalobos (“Defendant”) seeking damages arising from a motor vehicle action that occurred on November 4, 2019.

On August 23 and August 24, 2022, this Court issued orders compelling Plaintiffs to serve verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s discovery requests and to pay monetary sanctions within 30 days.  On November 1, 2022, and November 9, 2022, Defendant filed these two motions for terminating sanctions and monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs.

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).) 

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.)

It does not appear that Plaintiffs were served with a notice of ruling informing them of the Court’s orders and their obligations to provide responses and pay sanctions within 30 days.  Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiffs knew of their obligations and that their failure to obey the orders was willful. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s motions for terminating sanctions are DENIED without prejudice.

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.