Case Number: BC639372 Hearing Date: February 08, 2019 Dept: 2

Motion by Defendant, Bjorne Larson, for Terminating Sanctions Based on Plaintiff’s Failure to Obey Court Order of December 5, 2018 and for Monetary Sanctions, filed on 1/4/19, is DENIED.

Discovery sanctions are not to be imposed for punishment, but instead are used to encourage fair disclosure of discovery to prevent unfairness resulting from the lack of information. Midwife v. Bernal (1988) 203 Cal. App. 3d 57, 64. The Court is bound to tailor the sanction to accomplish the discovery sought. Do It Urself Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Brown, Leifer, Slatkin & Berns (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 27, 35.

Terminating sanctions are appropriate where there is outright refusal to comply with discovery obligations. Deyo v. Kilbourne, (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 793. An order imposing sanctions cannot go further than is necessary to accomplish the purpose of discovery. Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal. App. 4th 608, 615.

Plaintiff belatedly complied with the Court’s order of 12/5/18. Plaintiff served responses to Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents and Special Interrogatories on 1/28/19, after this motion was filed. Opposition, Ex. A. There is no evidence of Plaintiff’s outright refusal to comply with the Court’s order. Therefore, terminating sanctions are not warranted.

Defendant’s request for imposition of sanctions is DENIED for improper notice. The notice of motion does not identify the persons against whom sanctions are sought. The requesting party must identify in the notice, the person, party and attorney against whom the sanction is sought as well as the type of sanction sought. Cal. Code Civil Procedure § 2023.040.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.