Weathers, et al. v. Payne, et al.
MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
(CCP § 2023.010)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Jason James Payne’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED AS TO TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND DENIED AS TO MONETARY SANCTIONS. THE COURT HEREBY DISMISSES THE COMPLAINT OF UNJOHNA N. WEATHERS WITH PREJUDICE.
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiffs Unjohna Weathers and Dalin Speed (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Jason James Payne (“Defendant”) on November 13, 2018. On April 30, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s motion compelling Plaintiffs’ responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One and request for monetary sanctions. On May 2, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s motion compelling Plaintiffs’ responses to Request for Production, Set One and request for monetary sanctions. Finally, on August 19, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s motion compelling Plaintiffs’ attendance at deposition and request for monetary sanctions.
Prior to the Court granting the motion to compel Plaintiffs’ depositions, Defendant filed the instant Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff Unjohna Weathers’ Action on June 10, 2019. To date, no opposition has been filed.
Discussion
Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subds. (d), (g); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) The court should look to the totality of the circumstances in determining whether terminating sanctions are appropriate. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) “[A] penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.” (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.) “The court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders:
An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process.
An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed.
An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.
An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).)
The court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted here. Following the Court’s rulings regarding Defendant’s discovery requests, Defendant served notice of the orders on Plaintiffs by mail. (Notice of Ruling, filed 05/01/19; Notice of Ruling, filed 05/06/19; Motion, Hsu Decl., ¶¶2-3 and Exhs. A-B.) Despite notice of the Court’s orders, Plaintiff Weathers never served responses to the discovery requests. (Motion, Hsu Decl., ¶4.) Given the notice provided, the Court finds Plaintiff Weathers’ failure to serve responses to be a willful failure to comply with the April 30, 2019 and May 2, 2019 orders. Furthermore, although Plaintiff Weathers was properly served with the instant Motion to Dismiss, she has not opposed it. Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, the above evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff Weathers’ compliance with the Court’s orders cannot be achieved through lesser sanctions. Indeed, it appears that Plaintiff Weathers has no intention of complying with the Court’s orders or prosecuting her claims against Defendant. “The court [is] not required to allow a pattern of abuse to continue ad infinitum.” (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 280.) However, the Court declines to order monetary sanctions as they have been previously awarded and ignored by Plaintiff Weathers. Additional orders for monetary sanctions, therefore, would be futile.
Conclusion
Defendant Jason James Payne’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED AS TO TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND DENIED AS TO MONETARY SANCTIONS. THE COURT HEREBY DISMISSES THE COMPLAINT OF UNJOHNA N. WEATHERS WITH PREJUDICE.
Moving party to give notice.