2016-00192669-CU-OR

Chasity Dobbs vs. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Filed By: Ohlendorf, Renee Choy

Defendants Ocwen Loan Servicing, et al.’s unopposed motion for terminating sanctions, or in the alternative, issue and/or evidentiary sanctions is ruled upon as follows.

In this action, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff Daniel Cornett’s attendance at his deposition. The deposition was to occur by August 1, 2018. Plaintiff Daniel Cornett did not appear.

On August 3, 2018, the Court granted Defendants’ motions to compel Plaintiff Daniel Cornett’s and Chasity Dobbs’ responses to requests for production and special interrogatories (sets two). Plaintiffs have not served the responses. In addition, Defendants’ requests for admission were also deemed admitted and Plaintiffs were each ordered to pay $455 in sanctions. Defendants now seek terminating and/or issue and evidentiary sanctions for Plaintiffs’ failures to comply with the Court orders.

Here the Court finds that the drastic remedy of terminating sanctions is not yet warranted at this time. “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.” (Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Superior Court (1961) 188 Cal. App. 2d 300, 304.) “The penalty should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 793) The discovery sanction cannot put the propounding party in a better position than they would have been in if they had received the discovery. ( Puritan Insurance Co. v Superior Court (1985) 171 Cal. App.3d 877, 884.)

With respect to both Plaintiffs’ the motion is premised on the failure to provide responses to their requests for production and special interrogatories (sets two) as ordered by the Court on August 3, 2018. No sanctions have been previously imposed for the failure to provide the responses. The Court only imposed a modest amount of mandatory monetary sanctions of $455 in connection with the motion to deem matters admitted. In addition, there was the order compelling Plaintiff Daniel Cornett to attend his deposition. Plaintiff Daniel Cornett has yet to be sanctioned for failing to appear for his deposition. The Court finds that the failure to comply with the discovery orders in this case do not yet justify the drastic remedy of terminating sanctions. To that end, there do not appear to be any earlier discovery orders which the Plaintiff have failed to comply with. In addition, Plaintiffs have yet to have monetary sanctions imposed against them for failing to comply with the subject discovery orders.

Imposing the terminating sanction requested here would be punitive in light of the above circumstances and would be inconsistent with the incremental approach to discovery sanctions. The same holds true with respect to the request for issue and evidentiary sanctions which as framed by Defendants essentially act as a terminating sanction.

However, given the delay in complying with the Court’s discovery orders, the Court

finds that a modest award of monetary sanctions is appropriate. Defendants are
awarded monetary sanctions from Plaintiff Chasity Dobbs in the amount of $790

($395/hr x 2 hr). Defendants are awarded monetary sanctions from Plaintiff Daniel

Cornett in the amount of $1,657.50 ($395/hr x 2.5 hrs + $682.50 in court reporter fees). Sanctions are to be paid on or before November 15, 2018. If sanctions are not paid by that date, Defendants may prepare a formal order granting sanctions for the Court’s signature, and the order may be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

In addition, the Court will again order that Plaintiffs serve verified responses without objections to responses to requests for production and special interrogatories (sets two) as previously ordered by the Court. Responses shall be served no later than October 29, 2018. In addition, the Court again orders Plaintiff to appear for his deposition. That deposition shall occur no later than November 15, 2018, unless the parties otherwise mutually agree. Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with this order may lead to an inference that they have abandoned the action and may result in the imposition of serious sanctions, including terminating sanctions.

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