Case Number: KC065885    Hearing Date: July 10, 2014    Dept: O

Li v Zou (KC065885)

1. Plaintiff Li’s MOTION TO IMPOSE ISSUE, EVIDENCE AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS (FIRST SET SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT LAM – NO. 1)

2. Plaintiff Li’s MOTION TO IMPOSE ISSUE, EVIDENCE AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS (FIRST SET FORM INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT LAM – NO. 2)

3. Plaintiff Li’s MOTION TO IMPOSE ISSUE, EVIDENCE AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS (FIRST SET DOCUMENT DEMANDS TO DEFENDANT LAM – NO. 3)

4. Plaintiff Li’s MOTION TO IMPOSE ISSUE, EVIDENCE AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS (FIRST SET REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT LAM – NO. 4)

5. Plaintiff Li’s MOTION TO IMPOSE ISSUE, EVIDENCE AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS (FIRST SET FORM INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT ZOU – NO. 5)

6. Plaintiff Li’s MOTION TO IMPOSE ISSUE, EVIDENCE AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS (FIRST SET SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT ZOU – NO. 6)

7. Plaintiff Li’s MOTION TO IMPOSE ISSUE, EVIDENCE AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS (FIRST SET REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT ZOU – NO. 7)

8. Plaintiff Li’s MOTION TO IMPOSE ISSUE, EVIDENCE AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS (FIRST SET FORM INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT R&Y FASHION BOUTIQUE – NO. 8)

9. Plaintiff Li’s MOTION TO IMPOSE ISSUE, EVIDENCE AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS (FIRST SET SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT R&Y FASHION BOUTIQUE – NO. 9)

10. Plaintiff Li’s MOTION TO IMPOSE ISSUE, EVIDENCE AND TERMINATING SANCTIONS (FIRST SET DOCUMENT DEMANDS TO DEFENDANT R&Y FASHION BOUTIQUE – NO. 10)

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

1-10. Plaintiff’s motions for terminating sanctions are GRANTED.

Additional monetary sanctions are imposed against Defendants in the reduced sum of $2000.00, payable within 30 days because their failure to comply necessitated the instant motion.

If anyone engages in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose monetary sanction, issue sanction, evidence sanction, terminating sanction, and contempt sanction. (CCP § 2023.030.) The sanctions the court may impose are such as are suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks, but the court may not impose sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of discovery but to impose punishment. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 487.) A prerequisite to the imposition of the dismissal sanction is that the party has willfully failed to comply with a court order. (Ibid.) Terminating sanctions should only be ordered when there has been previous noncompliance with a rule or order and it appears a less severe sanction would not be effective. (Link v. Cater (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1326.) A terminating sanction issued solely because of a failure to pay a monetary sanction is never justified. (Newland v. Sup.Ct. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

On 5/8/14, this Court ordered Defendants to further respond to discovery without objections and to pay sanctions. No responses have been served.
Terminating sanctions are warranted because it does not appear that less severe sanctions will accomplish the object of discovery. Defendants were ordered to comply with Plaintiff’s discovery requests, and failed to comply. Defendants also failed to file any opposition in response to this or the previous motions, and their attorney has withdrawn as counsel. The court finds the Defendants have chosen to ignore the orders of the court, and have misused the discovery process and will not cooperate in further discovery or in this case.

Accordingly, motion is GRANTED. Additional monetary sanctions are imposed against Defendants in the reduced sum of $2000.00, payable within 30 days because their failure to comply necessitated the instant motion.