Case Number: BC644235 Hearing Date: January 18, 2019 Dept: 3

RODNEY NORALEZ,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

ANTONIO MACERA, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

Case No.: BC644235

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

January 18, 2018

On 11/08/18, the Court entered an order granting Defendant’s motions to compel (1) Plaintiff’s attendance at his deposition, (2) responses to supplemental interrogatories, and (3) responses to supplemental RPDs. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the order; at this time, Defendant seeks an order imposing terminating sanctions.

Pursuant to Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 776, the Court should typically impose lesser sanctions prior to awarding terminating sanctions. However, there are 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.

Terminating sanctions are imposed at this time for three reasons. First, the Court previously imposed monetary sanctions. Second, a brief review of the prior motions reveals that the discovery at issue goes to the “heart” of Plaintiff’s case, and therefore an issue or evidentiary sanction would be tantamount to a terminating sanction. Third, Plaintiff has not opposed this motion and appears to have abandoned the case.

Defendant also seeks monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. The request is denied; the Court finds imposition of terminating sanctions sufficient to meet the ends of justice at this time, and does not find imposition of additional monetary sanctions necessary.

Plaintiff’s case against Moving Defendant is dismissed.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.