2017-00209345-CU-PA

Julius Turner vs. College Oak Towing

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel 1) Form 2) Special 3) Production (College Oak

Filed By: Kam, Nicholas S.

Defendant College Oak Towing’s unopposed motion to compel self-represented Plaintiff Julius Turner’s further responses to discovery is granted as set forth below.

On September 21, 2017, this Court granted Defendant’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to form and special interrogatories and requests for production of documents (sets one) and ordered Plaintiff to provide complete responses as requested in the moving papers. Defendant specifically requested that Plaintiff provide complete responses without objections. Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s order.

Defendant filed a second motion to compel further responses which was denied without prejudice for a failure to meet and confer. Defendant now moves for another order compelling further responses to the subject discovery. Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s meet and confer efforts.

The motion is granted. No later than March 28, 2018, Plaintiff shall serve verified further responses to Defendant’s form and special interrogatories and requests for production (sets one) as requested in the moving papers.

In addition, Defendant’s request for mandatory monetary sanctions for failing to comply

with the Court’s September 21, 2017 order is granted. (CCP §§ 2030.300(e) and 2031.300(c).) Defendant is awarded sanctions from Plaintiff Julius Turner in the amount of $525 ($175/hr x 3 hrs). The monetary sanction is to be paid on or before April 14, 2018. If the sanction is not paid by that date, Defendant may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting the sanction, which may be enforced by a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

The Court denies Defendant’s alternate requests for issue, evidentiary, and/or terminating sanctions 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.)

Here, given that the Court has not previously sanctioned Plaintiff for discovery conduct, the Court finds that the lesser monetary sanction is appropriate prior to imposing the more drastic alternate sanctions requested by Defendant. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order may lead to an inference that he has abandoned the action and may result in the imposition of serious sanctions, including terminating sanctions.