Case Name: Progressive v. Satterwhite
Case Number: 114CV267778
On October 15, 2014, the Court will decide Progressive Choice Insurance, Respondent, motion to dismiss arbitration. Claimant Kuntu Satterwhite did not file an opposition.
- Statement of Facts
Claimant claims to have been injured as a result of a motor vehicle accident that took place on March14, 2012. Claimant filed a claim for uninsured motorist arbitration. Subsequently, respondent propounded initial discovery in order to “properly evaluate [the] matter for the purposes of binding arbitration.” (See Respondents Petition for Assignment of case Number for Uninsured Motorist Claim, p.1).
- Discovery Dispute
On April 4, 2014, Respondent propounded initial discovery including form interrogatories, set one, a request for production of documents, set one, and a notice of taking deposition. Claimant never responded or provided discovery. On August 22, 2014, Judge Manoukian granted Respondent’s motion to compel these responses and the deposition. To date, Claimant has failed to respond to discovery or to comply with the Court’s order.
Respondent now brings a motion to dismiss the arbitration in this case. Claimant has filed no opposition.
III. Analysis
CCP § 2023.010 states,” . . . the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose the following sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. . .” Subsection (g) states, “Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to . . . Disobeying a court order to provide discovery.”
CCP 2023.030 (d) (3) states, “The court may impose a terminating sanction by . . . [a]n order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.”
In this case, more five months have passed since responses to discovery were due. Almost two months have passed since the date by which claimant was ordered to provide responses. Claimant has taken no action comply with discovery or the Court’s order. Claimant continues to misuse the discovery process.
Terminating sanctions are to be used sparingly, only when the trial court concludes that lesser sanctions would not bring about the compliance of the offending party. (R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd., (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 496.) Two facts are absolutely prerequisite to imposition of a terminating sanction: there must be a failure to comply, and the failure must be willful. (Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1545.) The Court finds that Claimant has failed to comply with discovery and the Court’s order compelling discovery, and that the failure is willful.
Therefore the Court dismisses arbitration in this case.
Respondent’s motion is GRANTED
Link to this page