Case Number: 16K15940 Hearing Date: April 16, 2018 Dept: 77

Defendant Janet Eggleston’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED.

Background

On December 30, 2016, Plaintiff Laishea Harmon (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in the instant action against Defendant Janet Eggleston (“Defendant”). On September 5, 2017, Defendant filed a motion for order establishing admissions. On October 2, 2017, the Court granted the motion for order establishing admissions and ordered Plaintiff to pay sanctions in the amount of $935.00. On November 13, 2017, Defendant filed motions to compel responses to form interrogatories and requests for production of documents. On December 13, 2017, the Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel responses and ordered Plaintiff to pay sanctions in the amount of $820.00. On February 7, 2018, Defendant filed the instant motion. No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidentiary or monetary sanctions. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010(g), 2030.290(c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) 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. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.) Pursuant to CCP Section 2023.030(d):

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(d).)

Discussion

Defendant moves for terminating sanctions dismissing the instant action.

Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidentiary or monetary sanctions. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010(g), 2030.290(c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) 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. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.)

On October 2, 2017, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to deem requests for admissions admitted and ordered Plaintiff to pay sanctions in the amount of $935.00 within 30 days. Defendant served notice of the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff through Plaintiff’s former counsel on October 5, 2017. (See Deenihan Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Defense counsel has not received any payment from Plaintiff. (See id., ¶ 4.)

On December 13, 2017, the Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel responses to form interrogatories and request for production of documents, ordering Plaintiff to serve responses without objections within 20 days of written notice of the order. (See id., ¶ 5, Ex. B.) The Court also ordered Plaintiff to pay sanctions in the amount of $820.00 within 30 days. (See id.) Defendant served notice of the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff on January 5, 2018. (See id., ¶ 6, Ex. C.) Defense counsel has not received any discovery responses or payment from Plaintiff. (See id., ¶ 7.) Defense counsel has also received no indications that discovery responses will be forthcoming. (See id., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff has also disconnected her phone number and has not responded to any mailings from Defense counsel. (See id.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to serve responses to Defendant’s discovery and failure to pay sanctions amount to willful disobedience of its orders. Plaintiff was properly notified of the orders, yet failed to serve responses and pay sanctions. Furthermore, although Plaintiff was properly served, Plaintiff has not opposed this motion. Given Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders despite the imposition of earlier monetary sanctions, lesser sanctions will not produce compliance with discovery rules.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions dismissing Plaintiff’s action is granted.

Moving party to give notice.