Case Number: BC673782 Hearing Date: December 14, 2018 Dept: 4

Motion to Dismiss Action for Failure to Obey Court’s Order

The court considered the motion. No opposition was filed.

On August 25, 2017, plaintiffs Luis Carlos Santos Ruiz and Helen Nohemy Palenciacano filed a complaint against defendant Chelsea Nicole Didier for motor vehicle negligence based on a February 7, 2016 collision.

Trial is set for February 25, 2019.

On July 19, 2018, the court granted defendant’s motions to compel responses and motion for order establishing admissions as to plaintiff Luis Santos Ruiz.

On October 26, 2018, plaintiffs filed a request for dismissal as to plaintiff Palenciacano’s complaint.

Defendant requests that the court impose a terminating sanction against plaintiff Ruiz for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order dated July 19, 2018. Defendant also requests additional monetary sanctions in the amount of $433.50.

If a party fails to comply with a court order compelling discovery responses or attendance at a deposition, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions. CCP §2025.450(h) (depositions); §2030.290(c) (interrogatories); §2031.300(c) (demands for production of documents). CCP §2023.030 provides that, “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method . . . , the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose . . . [monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating] sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process . . . .” CCP §2023.010 provides that “[m]isuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: . . . (d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. . . . (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery. . . .”

“The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse ‘after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.’” Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 377, 390 (quoting Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal. App. 4th 1225, 1246). “Generally, ‘[a] decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.’” Los Defensores, 223 Cal. App. 4th at 390 (citation omitted).

“Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders.” Los Defensores, 223 Cal. App. 4th at 390 (citing Lang, 77 Cal. App. 4th at 1244-1246 (discussing cases)); see, e.g., Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal. App. 4th 1611, 1617-1622 (terminating sanctions imposed after defendants failed to comply with one court order to produce discovery); Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 481, 491, disapproved on other grounds in Garcia v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 469, 478, n. 4 (terminating sanctions imposed against plaintiff for failing to comply with a discovery order and for violating various discovery statutes).

On July 19, 2018, the court ordered plaintiff Ruiz to serve verified responses to defendant’s form interrogatories (sets one and two), special interrogatories (set one), and demand for inspection and production of documents (sets one and two), within 20 days. The court deemed admitted the truth of the matters in defendant’s Requests for Admission (set one). Plaintiff Ruiz was ordered to pay a monetary sanction in the amount of $659.38 within 20 days.

According to defense counsel, plaintiff failed to serve verified discovery responses and to pay sanctions.

Whether plaintiff complied with the court’s order to pay monetary sanctions is not relevant to the court’s determination as to whether terminating sanctions¿should be imposed, and the court has not considered that factor in making its determination. A court may not issue a terminating sanction for failure to pay a monetary discovery sanction. ¿Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal. App. 4th 608, 610, 615.¿ A monetary sanction order is enforceable as a money judgment under the Enforcement of Judgments Law, CCP §§680.010, et seq. Id. at 615.

The court finds that plaintiff has engaged in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process by disobeying the court’s July 19, 2018 order to serve verified discovery responses. CCP §§2023.010(g), 2023.030. The court thus finds that it is appropriate, and exercises its discretion, to impose a terminating sanction against plaintiff pursuant to CCP §2023.030(d).

The motion is GRANTED.

The court orders that the complaint against defendant is dismissed. CCP §2023.030(d)(3). The court denies plaintiff’s request for additional monetary sanctions because terminating sanctions are adequate.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.