Case Number: BC645565 Hearing Date: March 12, 2018 Dept: 92

PRECIOUS NICOLE FOX-BOOKER

Plaintiff,

vs.

PATRICE LASHAN DUCKETT; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO: BC645565

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT PATRICE LASHAN DUCKETT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT DUE TO MISUSE OF DISCOVERY PROCESS

Dept. 92

1:30 p.m.

March 12, 2018

Defendant served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and a Request for Production of Documents on May 18, 2017. Plaintiff did not file a timely response to these discovery requests. On November 21, 2017 the court ordered Plaintiff to respond to the discovery requests and imposed monetary sanctions of $620.00. Plaintiff did not timely comply with this order and did not pay the sanctions. Defendant now moves for terminating sanctions. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

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. Ultimately, terminating sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.)

Here, Plaintiff’s failure first to provide any response to discovery requests and later failure to comply with a court order after a hearing demonstrates a history of willful abuses. Additionally, the court has already imposed lesser sanctions in the amount of $620.00, which proved insufficient to induce plaintiff to abide by the rules of discovery. Though it is a harsh outcome, terminating sanctions are warranted here. The discovery at issue goes to the heart of the case. Moreover, the court reaches this conclusion at least in part because it appears – per Plaintiff’s counsel’s 1/24/2018 motion to withdraw and Plaintiff’s failure to oppose this motion —that Plaintiff has abandoned the case.

Defendant’s unopposed motion to dismiss the complaint is granted.

Dated this 12th day of March, 2018

Hon. Marc. Gross

Judge of the Superior Court