Case Number: BC558102 Hearing Date: March 21, 2018 Dept: 92

MARK BASSETT,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

CHARLES CARLSON, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC558102

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

Dept. 92

1:30 p.m.

March 21, 2018

On 11/16/17, the Court granted Defendants’ motions to compel responses to form interrogatories and RPDs, and also granted Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff to attend a deposition. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the orders; at this time, Defendants seek an order imposing terminating sanctions. Of note, Defendants have filed three motions for terminating sanctions, one relating to each failure to comply with the 11/16/17 order.

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.

Terminating sanctions are imposed at this time for three reasons. First, the Court previously imposed monetary sanctions. Second, a brief review of the prior motions reveals that the discovery at issue goes to the “heart” of Plaintiff’s case, and therefore an issue or evidentiary sanction would be tantamount to a terminating sanction. Third, Plaintiff has not opposed this motion and appears to have abandoned the case.

Defendants also seek monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. The request is denied; the Court finds imposition of terminating sanctions sufficient to meet the ends of justice at this time, and does not find imposition of additional monetary sanctions necessary.

Plaintiff’s case against Moving Defendants is dismissed.