Case Number: BC618523 Hearing Date: May 11, 2018 Dept: 3

ERIC ZAMUDIO,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

JOHN D. STILLMAN, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

Case No.: BC618523

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

May 11, 2018

Defendant propounded form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs on Plaintiff on 9/12/17. On 3/13/18, the Court entered an order granting Defendant’s motions to compel responses to the outstanding discovery; the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses within ten days. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the order; at this time, Defendant seeks an order imposing terminating sanctions.

Pursuant to Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 776, the Court should typically impose lesser sanctions prior to awarding terminating sanctions. However, there are circumstances where imposition of terminating sanctions is appropriate without first imposing issue and/or evidentiary sanctions. See Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exch. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 490-91.

Terminating sanctions are imposed at this time for three reasons. First, a brief review of the prior motions reveals that the discovery at issue goes to the “heart” of Plaintiff’s case, and therefore an issue or evidentiary sanction would be tantamount to a terminating sanction. Second, Plaintiff has not opposed this motion and appears to have abandoned the case.

Defendant does not seek monetary sanctions, and none are imposed.

Plaintiff’s case against Defendant is dismissed. Defendant is ordered to give notice.