2018-00231085-CL-AF

People of the State of Ca. vs. $965.00 (Kouri)

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Strike

Filed By: Miller, Lauren E.

Petitioner the People of the State of California’s (“Petitioner”) motion for terminating sanctions is DENIED.

On September 17, 2018, Petitioner’s unopposed motion to compel real party in interest Moe Kouri to provide responses to Petitioner’s request for production of documents, set one, was granted. Mr. Kouri was ordered to provide responses by September 27, 2018. Mr. Kouri has not yet provided responses and Petitioner now moves for terminating sanctions on that basis.

For misuse of the discovery process, including as is the case here, disobeying a court order to provide discovery, the Court may impose issue, evidence, terminating, or monetary sanctions. (See, e.g. Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010(d) and (g),

2023.030(a-(d).) In ordering terminating sanctions, the Court has broad discretion in the selection of the appropriate sanction to be applied under the factual circumstances. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991-992.)

The Court may impose sanctions that 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 the discovery but to impose punishment. (Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Superior Court (1961) 188 Cal. App. 2d 300, 304.) “The penalty should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 793.) In ordering terminating sanctions, the Court has broad discretion in the selection of the appropriate sanction to be applied under the factual circumstances. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. 174 Cal. App. 4th 967, 991-992.)

Terminating sanctions are to be used sparingly because of the drastic effect of their application. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.) Accordingly, sanctions are generally imposed in an incremental approach, with terminating sanctions being a last resort. (Ibid.) However, even under the Civil Discovery Act’s incremental approach, the trial court may impose terminating sanctions as a first measure in extreme cases, or where the record shows that lesser sanctions would be ineffective. (Lopez, at pp. 604-605; see Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516-1519.)

Here, the Court finds there has not yet been a misuse of the discovery process warranting the severe imposition of terminating sanctions. While Mr. Kouri has failed to comply with the Court’s discovery Order, it has only been approximately one month since the deadline to provide responses. In these circumstances, terminating sanctions are not yet warranted as they would be disproportionate to the prejudice caused by the failure to timely respond in compliance with the Court’s order. Accordingly, the motion for terminating sanctions is DENIED. The Court notes, however, that a continued failure to comply with Court Orders may warrant terminating sanctions.

There was no request for sanctions. Hence, none are awarded.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.