Case Number: BC581489 Hearing Date: January 12, 2018 Dept: A

Dieckman v Staebler

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

Calendar: 1

Case No: BC581489

Date: 1/12/18

MP: Defendants, Ronald Staebler and Jacqueline Staebler

RP: Plaintiff, Earl Dieckman

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Order imposing discovery sanctions on Plaintiff.

DISCUSSION:

This case arises from the Plaintiffs’ claim that the Defendants, Kylen Young, Lorin Harrell, and Roxanne Lamar-Reed, assaulted and battered the Plaintiff near the Plaintiff’s apartment at the Sierra Monterey Apartments. In addition, the Plaintiffs claim that the apartment’s owners, Defendants, Ronald Staebler and Jacqueline Staebler, and their managing agent, the Defendant, Aurelio Holguin, wrongfully evicted the Plaintiffs.

This hearing concerns the Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions on the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s September 15, 2017 order directing the Plaintiff to serve responses to the Defendants’ special interrogatories, supplemental interrogatories, and supplemental requests for production.

CCP section 2023.030 permits the Court to impose terminating 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.

On September 15, 2017, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to serve responses to the Defendant’s special interrogatories, set two, supplemental interrogatories, set one, and supplemental request for production, set one, without objections (see copy of order in moving papers exhibit A). The Defendant’s attorney, Jonathan Ross, states in his declaration that the Plaintiff failed to serve the Court-ordered responses.

In his opposition, the Plaintiff does not address the issue, which is whether he complied with the Court’s September 15, 2017 order. Instead, the Plaintiff argues that the motion is improper, that opposing counsel has committed fraud, that he has repeatedly responded to the Defendants’ discovery, that there are no grounds to for an involuntary dismissal, that the Defendants have no standing, that the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction, and that the Defendants have failed to respond to the Plaintiff’s discovery. Despite pages of argument, the Plaintiff, does not simply state that he complied with the Court’s September 15, 2017 order and offer copies of the verified responses that he served, as ordered by the Court.

Further, the Plaintiff’s arguments lack merit. First, there is no procedural error in the Defendants’ motion because the Defendants are seeking relief under the procedures in CCP sections 2023.010 et seq. for imposing monetary sanctions. The Defendants are not seeking an involuntarily dismissal under CCP sections 583.11 et seq. and the Plaintiff’s argument that it has not been five years and that the Plaintiff has been diligent are irrelevant to the inquiry on this motion, which concerns solely whether the Plaintiff has complied with the Court’s order.

Second, there are no grounds to find that the Defendants’ counsel has engaged in any fraudulent conduct by filing a motion based on the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with a Court order. Instead, the Plaintiff’s arguments are that the Court should not have granted the motions on September 15, 2017 because the number of interrogatories is excessive, that discovery is cut-off, and that it was harassing to serve supplemental interrogatory and supplemental request for production because this required the Plaintiff to review all prior responses. These arguments are directed at seeking reconsideration of the order directing the Plaintiff to serve the responses. They do not show that the Plaintiff complied with the September 15, 2017 order.

Third, there is no issue with standing whatsoever because the Defendants, who have been brought into this Court by the Plaintiff, are sufficiently connected to the claims in this case to support their participation in this case.

Fourth, there are no grounds to find that the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction over this discovery dispute. Instead, this Court issued a discovery order and the Defendants have provided evidence, apparently undisputed, that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order.

Fifth, the Plaintiff’s arguments about the Defendants’ conduct do not address the inquiry into whether the Plaintiff misused discovery by failing to comply with the Court’s September 15, 2017 discovery order.

The Plaintiff, Earl Dieckman, provides facts in his declaration. These facts support only his own request for monetary sanctions. There are no facts showing that after the September 15, 2017 hearing, the Plaintiff drafted and served responses to the Defendants’ special interrogatories, supplemental interrogatory, and supplemental request for production, as ordered. A review of untabbed exhibits A to E reveals that none of them contain evidence that the Plaintiff complied with the September 15, 2017 discovery order, e.g., copies of proofs of service showing that the responses had been served or copies of the responses. There is a copy of a docket from the Court of Appeal and portions of discovery responses from the Defendants. None of the documents are relevant to the inquiry at this hearing and none have been authenticated. As a result, none of the documents contain any facts showing that the Plaintiff complied with the Court’s September 15, 2017 discovery order.

As a result, the Plaintiff has not provided evidence that he complied with his discovery obligations, i.e., the Court’s September 15, 2017 order. Further, the Plaintiff has not offered any facts to explain his failure to comply with the Court’s discovery order. The Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s discovery order exposes him to terminating sanctions. Since the Plaintiff has refused to state that he intends to comply with the discovery order, no lesser sanction than terminating sanctions will accomplish the purposes of discovery.

Therefore, the Court will grant the Defendants’ motion and impose terminating sanctions on the Plaintiff by dismissing his pleadings directed at the moving Defendants.

The Defendants also requested monetary sanctions. As noted above, an order imposing discovery order cannot go further than is necessary to accomplish the purpose of discovery. Since the problem presented by the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with discovery will be corrected by terminating sanctions, an order imposing additional monetary sanctions would go further than is necessary to accomplish the purpose of discovery. Therefore, the Court will deny the request for additional monetary sanctions.

RULING:

Grant Defendant’s motion and impose terminating sanctions on the Plaintiff by dismissing his pleadings.

Deny request for monetary sanctions.