Case Number: LC102106??? Hearing Date: October 14, 2016??? Dept: A
Bank of America v Jasulaitis
MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
Calendar: 20
Case No: LC102106
Date: 10/14/16
MP: Plaintiff, Bank of America, N.A.
RP: Defendant, Daiva Jasulaitis
RELIEF REQUESTED:
1. Order imposing terminating sanctions for failure to comply with June 5, 2015 discovery order.
2. Order imposing monetary sanctions on the Defendant.
DISCUSSION:
This case arises from the Plaintiff?s claim that the Defendants breached an agreement to repay a loan.
This hearing concerns the Plaintiff?s motion to impose terminating sanctions on the Defendant because she failed to comply with the Court?s June 5, 2015 discovery order. On June 5, 2015, the Court ordered the Defendant to serve further responses without objections to the Plaintiff?s form and special interrogatories. The Plaintiff?s attorney, Marlene Leiva, states that the Defendant did not serve any further responses.
CCP section 2023.030 permits the Court to impose terminating sanctions and monetary sanctions for discovery misuses, which are defined by CCP section 2023.010 to include the failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery and the failure to comply with a Court discovery order.
Under California law, a discovery order cannot go further than is necessary to accomplish the purpose of discovery. Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal. App. 4th 608, 613. The purpose of discovery sanctions is to prevent abuse of the discovery process and correct the problem presented. McGinty v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal. App. 4th 204, 210. In addition, an order imposing terminating sanctions must be preceded by the disobedience of an order compelling a party to do that which the party should have done in the first instance. Kravitz v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1015, 1021.
Accordingly, there are grounds for terminating sanctions when a party fails to comply with discovery and fails to comply with Court orders regarding discovery.
The Defendant has failed to comply with the Court?s June 5, 2015 discovery order directing her to serve responses without objections to the Plaintiff?s form interrogatories and special interrogatories, and requests for production. The Defendant?s attorney, Michael Montgomery, filed an opposition to the request for monetary sanctions against himself. There is no opposition from the Defendant, Daiva Jasulaitis, that contains facts showing that the Defendant will comply with the Court?s order.
On the contrary, the papers filed by her attorney, Michael Montgomery, included a letter dated August 17, 2015 in which he states that the motion will not be opposed, that the Defendant will not be serving further responses, will not be paying sanctions, and will not be attending her depositions set for August 27 and August 28. This indicates that the Defendant is completely refusing to engage in discovery.
Accordingly, it appears necessary to impose terminating sanctions on the Defendant, Daiva Jasulaitis, because no lesser sanction will accomplish the purpose of discovery. The Defendant has refused to comply with the Court?s order and has not filed any opposition papers to demonstrate that she will comply with her discovery obligations or this Court?s discovery order. In these circumstances, no lesser sanction than terminating sanctions will solve the problem created by the Defendant?s continuous failure to comply with discovery.
Therefore, the Court will grant the Plaintiff?s motion and impose terminating sanctions on the Defendant for her misuse of discovery. The Court should strike her answer and enter a default judgment against her.
The Plaintiff also seeks an award of monetary sanctions against the Defendant and her counsel. There are no grounds to impose any monetary sanctions on the Defendant?s counsel as there is no evidence that he engaged in the misuse of discovery.
Further, as noted above, a discovery order cannot go further than is necessary to accomplish the purpose of discovery. Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal. App. 4th 608, 613. The purpose of discovery sanctions is to prevent abuse of the discovery process and correct the problem presented. McGinty v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal. App. 4th 204, 210. Since the Court will impose terminating sanctions, the problem presented by the Defendant?s misuse of discovery will be corrected and an order imposing monetary sanctions would go further than is necessary to accomplish the purpose of discovery.
Accordingly, the Court will deny the request for monetary sanctions.
RULING:
1. Impose terminating sanctions on the Defendant, Daiva Jasulaitis, by striking her answer and entering a default judgment against her.
2. Deny request for monetary sanctions.