Lawzilla Additional Information:
Republished below is the tentative ruling. Lawzilla believes for the final ruling the court denied the motion for terminating sanctions and instead imposed monetary sanctions.

Case Number: BC609728 Hearing Date: May 02, 2018 Dept: 7

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; MOTION GRANTED

On February 11, 2016, Plaintiff Rhonda Mahoney (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Albertson’s (“Defendant”) for premises liability relating to a February 17, 2014 slip and fall. On November 1, 2017, Defendant served written discovery on Plaintiff. (Declaration of Christoffer M. Gaddini, ¶ 4.) Plaintiff failed to respond an on February 9, 2018, the Court granted Defendant’s Motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses and impose monetary sanctions. (Gaddini Decl., ¶¶ 10, 11.) Defendant served a Notice of Ruling, but Plaintiff failed to serve responses or pay the monetary sanction. (Gaddini Decl., ¶¶ 11, 12.) Defendant seeks terminating sanctions.

Where a party fails to obey an order compelling answers to discovery, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.” (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2023.010, subd. (c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.)

The Court may impose a terminating sanction against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) Misuse of the discovery process includes failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery or disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (g).) A terminating sanction may be imposed by an order dismissing part or all of the action. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d)(3).) Terminating sanctions should not be ordered lightly, but are justified where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and there is evidence that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.)

Before any sanctions may be imposed the court must make an express finding that there has been a willful failure of the party to serve the required answers. (Fairfield v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 113, 118.) Lack of diligence may be deemed willful where the party understood its obligation, had the ability to comply, and failed to comply. (Fred Howland Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 605, 610-611.) The party on whom the interrogatories were served has the burden of showing that the failure to respond was not willful. (Cornwall v. Santa Monica Dairy Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 250; Evid. Code, §§ 500, 605.)

Plaintiff filed no opposition to this Motion for terminating sanctions and has presented no evidence showing her failure to comply with the Court’s Orders was not willful. It is undisputed that Plaintiff failed to serve responses to discovery, failed to pay monetary sanctions, and disobeyed a court order to do so. Further, Defendant served a Notice of Ruling on Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court concludes Plaintiff knew of her discovery obligations, of the court order compelling her to respond, and failed to comply. Such conduct amounts to willful disobedience of a court order and misuse of the discovery process.

Defendant’s Motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Moving party to give notice.