Case Number: 16K15943 Hearing Date: April 26, 2018 Dept: 94

Defendant FCA US, LLC’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions or, in the Alternative, to Compel Further Discovery Responses is GRANTED. This action against FCA is hereby dismissed with prejudice pursuant to CCP § 2023.030(d)(3).

On December 30, 2016, Plaintiffs Vardan Vardanyan and Alex Gharibyan (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants FCA US, LLC (“FCA”) and Arthur Gharibyan.

Because Plaintiffs failed to serve verified responses to FCA’s discovery requests, FCA filed several motions to compel discovery responses on October 31, 2017. In its February 8, 2018 Minute Order, the Court found that the motions to compel discovery responses to be moot, but granted $1,260 monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs because they failed to timely serve discovery responses to Defendant. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to pay the monetary sanctions within 30 days. On the same day, FCA served Plaintiffs notice of the February 8, 2018 Order.

On March 27, 2018, FCA filed a Motion for Terminating Sanctions or, in the Alternative, to Compel Further Discovery Responses (the “Motion”).

Legal Standards

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.

(4) 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. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1229.) There are, however, circumstances where imposition of terminating sanctions is appropriate without first imposing issue and/or evidentiary sanctions. (See Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exch. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 490-91.) 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.)

Discussion

As noted in the February 8, 2018 Minute Order, Plaintiffs were abusing the discovery process by failing to timely respond to FCA’s discovery requests. As a result, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to pay monetary sanctions to FCA within 30 days. Plaintiffs have not complied with the February 8, 2018 Order, nor have Plaintiffs filed an opposition to explain their failure to comply with the Court’s Order.

Upon reviewing Plaintiffs’ discovery responses, FCA found the responses to be inadequate. (Cosgrove Decl. ¶ 7, Exh. 12.) Accordingly, FCA sent Plaintiffs a meet and confer letter, requesting supplemental responses. (Id.) FCA granted Plaintiffs two extensions until February 28, 2018, then March 14, 2018, to provide it with supplemental responses. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9, Exhs. 13-14.) To date, Plaintiffs have not provided any supplemental responses to FCA or oppose this Motion to explain why they have not provided such responses.

Despite this Court’s imposition of monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs, they continue to abuse the discovery process. Significantly, Plaintiffs failed to comply with the Court’s Order to pay monetary sanctions to FCA. Since Plaintiffs first filed their Complaint on December 30, 2016, they have not filed any motions or opposed any of FCA’s motions, including the instant Motion for Terminating Sanctions.

In view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court is persuaded that less severe sanctions would not bring Plaintiffs into compliance with the discovery process. “The court [is] not required to allow this pattern of abuse to continue ad infinitum.” (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 280.) The Court, therefore, finds that terminating sanctions are appropriate here. Accordingly, FCA’s Motion is GRANTED as to the request for terminating. This action against FCA is hereby dismissed with prejudice pursuant to CCP § 2023.030(d)(3).

FCA requests that the Court impose additional monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs. (Notice of Motion p. 2.) The court finds, however, as that additional monetary sanctions would be futile as this action against FCA has been dismissed. Accordingly, FCA’s request for further monetary sanctions is denied.

Moving party to give notice.