17-CIV-05133 RANDALL SHANNON VS. SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT, ET AL.

RANDALL SHANNON SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT
PRO/PER KEVIN J. GRAY

DEFENDANT SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant San Mateo County Transit District’s unopposed motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED pursuant to C.C.P. §§2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c).

CCP §§2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) provides that if a party fails to obey an order compelling a response 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. In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction.

Whether to grant a sanction is entirely within the discretion of the court. The court is not required to grant any particular sanction. See Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial §8:1207 (TRG 2019) citing Pember v. Superior Court (1967) 66 Cal.2d 601, 604. However, dismissal is a drastic remedy and courts are to consider the actions of the party against whom terminating sanctions are requested and whether lesser sanctions are available. Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 736, 759 (affirming dismissal of case based upon inherent authority of the court). In this case, in excising its discretion after a review of the record, the Court determines that terminating sanctions are the only appropriate remedy. The court has provided Plaintiff Randall Shannon with two opportunities to respond to discovery. Plaintiff failed to comply with two court orders compelling him to respond to written discovery and to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant San Mateo County Transit District. Plaintiff was on notice that terminating sanctions were possible. He has failed to provide any opposition to this motion to provide a reason for his disobedience of two court orders. Accordingly, no lesser sanction is appropriate when a Plaintiff disregards court orders and has failed to provide any discovery. It would be unfair and prejudicial to Defendant to have to defend this case without any discovery.

The record demonstrates that Defendant served Plaintiff with written discovery comprised of two sets of special interrogatories, two sets of request for production of documents, form interrogatories, and a request for a statement of damages. Gray declaration ¶¶2, 7; see also 1010-19 Gray declaration in support of Defendant’s Motion to Compel, Exs. B-D; 3-22-19 Gray declaration in support of Defendant’s Motion to Compel, Exs. A-B. Plaintiff only responded to a few of the questions with unverified, incomplete answers, and completely failed to respond to the vast majority of discovery requests. Id. ¶¶5, 8; see also 10-10-19 Gray declaration in support of Defendant’s Motion to Compel, Ex. G; 3-22-19 Gray declaration in support of Defendant’s Motion to Compel, Ex. E. The court has since issued two orders compelling Plaintiff to provide complete, verified responses. Monetary sanctions have been imposed on Plaintiff twice for his failure to respond to discovery requests. Plaintiff had notice of these orders. One order was issued at a hearing that Plaintiff attended, 5-1-19 Minute Order, and Defendant served Plaintiff with notice of the second order after the court issued it. The Court’s second order also cautioned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Court’s orders may result in terminating sanctions. Notice of Entry of Order filed November 26, 2019. Despite this warning, and despite several attempts by Defendant to meet and confer prior to both motions to compel, Gray declaration ¶¶35, 8-9, 13, Plaintiff has not complied with these orders and has not paid any sanctions. Plaintiff also did not oppose Defendant’s motions to compel or this motion. While Plaintiff represents himself, he has been on notice for over nine months, since the Court’s May 1, 2019 order, of the need to provide verified and complete responses and has not done so. This conduct suggests that Plaintiff is not interested in pursuing his case and that no lesser sanction would encourage him to comply with his discovery obligations.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.