2017-00212703-CU-PO

Keisha Truitt vs. R. Scott Rasmussen, LLC

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Filed By: Bordin-Wosk, Joshua

Defendant Experis US, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) motion for terminating sanctions against plaintiff Keisha Truitt (“Plaintiff”) is UNOPPOSED and is GRANTED.

Defendant moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff in pro per due to her failure to comply with Court orders regarding discovery, failure to select trial and mandatory settlement conference dates, and failure to respond to correspondence from defense counsel. The Court notes Plaintiff, as a self-represented party, is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Williams v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 941, 944.)

Plaintiff, a self-represented party, has failed to obey this Court’s March 29, 2018, order compelling her to serve verified responses to Defendant’s first set of special interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Plaintiff did not oppose the underlying motion to compel.

Plaintiff also failed to serve any responses to Defendant’s first set of requests for admissions and on March 29, 2018, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to deem matters admitted and ordered Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions to defense counsel by April 20, 2018. Plaintiff did not oppose the underlying motion and has failed to comply with this Court order regarding monetary sanctions.

The deadline to select trial and mandatory settlement conference dates was April 15, 2018. Plaintiff never attempted to engage in communication with defense counsel to coordinate selection of these dates, and Plaintiff has never responded to any correspondence from defense counsel.

For misuse of the discovery process, including as is the case here, disobeying a court order to provide discovery, the Court may impose issue, evidence, terminating, or monetary sanctions. (See, e.g. Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010(d) and (g),

2023.030(a-(d).) In ordering terminating sanctions, the Court has broad discretion in the selection of the appropriate sanction to be applied under the factual circumstances. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991-992.) Ms. Truitt, as a self-represented party, is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Williams v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 941, 944.)

Here, it appears Plaintiff has intentionally ignored the Court’s orders and her discovery obligations. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to discovery and failure to comply with the Court’s multiple orders constitutes misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010(d), (g).) Plaintiff also failed to oppose the underlying motion to compel

and motion to deem matters admitted, as well as the instant motion, and failed to correspond with Defendant. Under the circumstances, the Court finds that a terminating sanction is warranted.

The motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED.