Lawzilla Additional Information
The Los Angeles Superior Court records indicate the defendant is the Law Offices of Joseph C. LaCosta and defendant’s attorney is Michael Bernard Taggart.

MP: Plaintiffs, Armen Dallakian and Adrine Reganian
RP: Defendants, Joseph La Costa and Jeffrew Agnew

RELIEF REQUESTED:
Order imposing terminating sanctions on Defendants for their failure to comply with the Court’s November 22, 2013 and January discovery order

CHRONOLOGY:
Court orders compelling
responses: January 10, 2014 and January 24, 2014
Responses served in compliance
with Court orders: None

DISCUSSION:
This case arises from the Plaintiffs’ claim that the Defendants breached an agreement to provide legal services to the Plaintiffs.
At this hearing, the Plaintiffs seek an order to impose terminating sanctions on the Defendants by striking their answer and entering a default against them. The Plaintiffs seek this remedy based on the Defendants failure to comply with the follow discovery orders:

1) the Court’s January 10, 2014 order compelling the Defendants to serve responses to the Plaintiffs’ form interrogatories; and
2) the Court’s January 24, 2014 order compelling the Defendants to serve responses to the Plaintiffs’ requests for production.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs did not comply with CCP section 1005(b) by serving the motion at least 16 Court days before the hearing. However, under California law, the Court may treat an opposition on the merits as a waiver of a defect in notice. Alliance Bank v. Murray (1984) 161 Cal. App. 3d 1, 7. Here, the Defendants’ opposition attempts to oppose the Plaintiffs’ motion on the merits by arguing that terminating sanctions are inappropriate, that the Plaintiffs’ exhibits are inadmissible, and by making attacks on the Plaintiffs, e.g., they they are vexatious and wasting Court resources.
Accordingly, the Court will consider the Defendants to have waived any defect in the notice and issue a ruling on the merits.

CCP section 2023.030 permits the Court to impose terminating 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. The Plaintiffs have provided evidence to demonstrate that the Defendants have misused discovery by failing to serve responses to discovery and by failing to comply with two Court discovery orders: the January 10, 2014 order and the January 24, 2014 order.
The Defendants argue in their opposition that terminating sanctions are inappropriate here. However, the Defendants do not provide facts demonstrating that they have served the Court-ordered responses to the Plaintiffs’ form interrogatories and requests for production. Further, the Defendants do not state that they will comply with their discovery obligations and the Court’s orders and serve responses.

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.
In the pending case, it appears necessary to impose terminating sanctions on the Defendants by striking their answer and entering a default against them. The Defendants have failed to serve responses to the Plaintiffs’ discovery. The Defendants have failed to comply with two Court discovery orders: the January 10, 2014 and the January 24, 2014 order. Even after the Plaintiffs filed the pending motion, the Defendants failed to serve responses.

Therefore, the Court will grant the Plaintiffs’ motion and impose terminating sanctions on the Defendants for their misuse of discovery.

The Plaintiffs also seek monetary sanctions and a finding of contempt. 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 Defendants’ misuse of discovery will be corrected 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.
Further, the Court will decline to find the Defendants in contempt. This is a discovery dispute and the discovery code provides a sufficient remedy for the Defendants’ misuse of discovery, i.e., terminating sanctions.

RULING:
1. Impose terminating sanctions on the Defendants by striking their answer.
2. Deny request for monetary sanctions and request for finding of contempt.