Case Number: GC045404    Hearing Date: November 07, 2014    Dept: A

Estate of Barker v Mylan, Inc.

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS

Calendar: 20
Case No: GC045404
Date: 11/7/14

MP: Plaintiffs, Marilyn M. Smith, individually and as administrator of estate of
Matthew Barker
RP: Defendant, Robin Motola

RELIEF REQUESTED:
Order imposing discovery sanctions on Defendant, Robin Motola

DISCUSSION:
This case involves the death of Matthew Barker, who was a disabled adult. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant, Cari Garza, who was a psychiatric nurse, maintained an improper relationship with Matthew Barker and that she provided medication to Matthew Barker that caused his death.
Trial is set for May 11, 2015.

This hearing concerns the Plaintiffs’ motion to impose discovery sanctions on the Defendant, Robin Motola, on the ground that the Defendant has failed to comply with the Court’s November 1, 2013 discovery order that directed the Defendant to serve responses to the Plaintiffs’ form interrogatories and requests for production.
The Plaintiffs’ attorney, Lisa Fisher, provides facts in her declaration to demonstrate that the Defendant, Robin Motola, did not serve responses to the Plaintiffs’ form interrogatories and requests for production and that the Defendant did not comply with the Court’s November 1, 2013 order directing the Defendant to serve responses without objections.

CCP section 2023.030 permits the Court to impose terminating sanctions and monetary sanctions for discovery misuses, which are defined by CCP section 2023.010 to include the failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery and the failure to comply with a Court discovery order.
Under California law, a discovery order cannot go further than is necessary to accomplish the purpose of discovery. Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal. App. 4th 608, 613. The purpose of discovery sanctions is to prevent abuse of the discovery process and correct the problem presented. McGinty v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal. App. 4th 204, 210. In addition, an order imposing terminating sanctions must be preceded by the disobedience of an order compelling a party to do that which the party should have done in the first instance. Kravitz v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1015, 1021. Accordingly, there are grounds for terminating sanctions when a party fails to comply with discovery and fails to comply with Court orders regarding discovery.

The Defendant has failed to serve responses to form interrogatories and requests for production. The Defendant has failed to comply with the Court’s August 1, 2014 discovery order. The Defendant did not file any opposition papers to demonstrate that Robin Motola will comply with Robin Motola’s discovery obligations or with this Court’s orders. It appears necessary to impose terminating sanctions on the Defendant, Robin Motola, by striking the answer and entering a default. In these circumstances, no lesser sanction than terminating sanctions will solve the problem created by the Defendant’s failure to comply with discovery.

Therefore, the Court will grant the Plaintiffs’ motion and impose terminating sanctions on the Defendant, Robin Motola, for misuse of discovery.

The Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions. As noted above, a discovery order cannot go further than is necessary to accomplish the purpose of discovery. Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal. App. 4th 608, 613. The purpose of discovery sanctions is to prevent abuse of the discovery process and correct the problem presented. McGinty v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal. App. 4th 204, 210. Since the Court will impose terminating sanctions, the problem presented by the Defendant’s misuse of discovery will be corrected and an order imposing monetary sanctions would go further than is necessary to accomplish the purpose of discovery. Accordingly, the Court will deny the request for monetary sanctions.

Finally, a different Defendant, Cari Eileen, served an opposition to request that the discovery sanctions not prejudice her ability to litigate her own defense. Since the Court is imposing terminating sanctions on Robin Motola by striking the answer and entering a default judgment, this will not prejudice Cari Eileen’s ability to litigate her defense.

RULING:
1. Impose terminating sanctions on the Defendant, Robin Motola, by striking her answer and entering a default judgment against the Defendant.
2. Deny request for monetary sanctions.