2015-00178508-CU-PA

Charankamal Singh Chana vs. Peter Ruppert

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Filed By: McKenna, J. Justin

Defendant Peter Ruppert’s motion for terminating against Plaintiff Charankamal Singh Chana is ruled upon as follows.

Defendant moves for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff Charankamal Singh Chana pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010(d), or in the alternative, evidentiary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030(c) as a result of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Court’s June 11, 2018 order. The June 11 order compelled Plaintiff to provide verified responses without objections to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Request for Production of Documents, Set One by June 21, 2018. Defendant had not received responses as of the date of the filing of the motion.

Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $510 if an appearance at the hearing is required or $360 if no appearance is required.

A trial court must be cautious in imposing a terminating sanction as the sanction eliminates a party’s fundamental right to a trial, thereby implicating due process rights. The trial court should select a sanction that is tailored to the harm caused by the withheld discovery. Sanctions should be appropriate to the deficiency, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604-605.) “The sanctions the court may impose are such as are suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks but the court may not impose sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of the discovery but to impose punishment.” (Petersen v. Vallejo (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 757, 782, citations omitted.) The statutes thus “evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.) While in extreme cases courts have the authority to order a terminating sanction as a first measure (see Miranda v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 913, 928-929; Alliance Bank v. Murray (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 1, 10), a terminating sanction should generally not be imposed until the court has attempted less severe alternatives and found them to be unsuccessful and/or the record clearly demonstrates that lesser sanctions would be ineffective (see Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516; Doppes, 174 Cal.App.4th at 992; Oliveros v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1389, 1399.).

Plaintiff filed a late opposition on August 7, 2018, stating that “Plaintiff is a commercial truck driver who travels all over and has sporadic cell phone service” and that Plaintiff’s counsel had been trying to reach him to review his discovery responses and sign verifications. Plaintiff ultimately came into counsel’s office on August 7, 2018, and reviewed responses and signed verifications. Plaintiff also agreed to pay sanctions in the amount of $510. The verified responses to the discovery were then personally served on defense counsel that same day along with a check for $510. (Friel Decl., Exhs. 1, 2.)

A terminating sanction is denied as it does not reflect the incremental approach to discovery sanctions. Defendant is entitled to responses to the discovery, and Plaintiff has provided verified responses since Defendant filed the instant motion.

Monetary sanctions were denied with the motion to compel responses as the motion was unopposed. With this motion, Plaintiff agreed to pay the full requested sanctions

amount of $510 and has already issued a check to defense counsel for same. As such, the request is moot.

Plaintiff is cautioned that further misuse of the discovery process may result in sanctions, including terminating sanctions.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.