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.) “California discovery law authorizes a range of penalties for conduct amounting to ‘misuse of the discovery process,’ including terminating sanctions.” (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390.) 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.)
“[T]erminating sanctions are to be used sparingly because of the drastic effect of their application. Thus, under the statutory scheme, trial courts should select sanctions tailored to the harm caused by the misuse of the discovery process and should not exceed what is required to protect the party harmed by the misuse of the discovery process. Therefore, sanctions are generally imposed in an incremental approach, with terminating sanctions being the last resort.” (Department of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 154, 191.)
If a party fails to comply with a court order compelling discovery responses or attendance at a deposition, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(h); Code of Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c); Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(c).) 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. Super. Ct. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1015, 1021.)
“The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse after considering the totality of the circumstances: the conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.” (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390; Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1224.) A violation of a discovery order is sufficient for the imposition of terminating sanctions. (Collison & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1620.) Terminating sanctions are appropriate when a party persists in disobeying the court's orders. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 795-796.)
“Generally, ‘[a] decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.’” (Los Defensores, 223 Cal. App. 4th at 390.)
The party seeking to impose sanctions need only show the failure to obey earlier discovery orders. (Puritan Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 877, 884.)
However, numerous cases hold that severe sanctions (i.e., terminating or evidentiary sanctions) for failure to comply with a court order are allowed only where the failure was willful. (R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495; Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1545; Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327.)
The burden of proof then shifts to the party seeking to avoid sanctions to establish a satisfactory excuse for his or her conduct. (Corns v. Miller (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 195, 201; Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1227.) “[A]bsent unusual circumstances, such as repeated and egregious discovery abuses, two facts are generally prerequisite to the imposition of a nonmonetary sanction. There must be a failure to comply with a court order and the failure must be willful.” (Lee v. Lee (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1553, 1559.)
The court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders:
(Code of Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(d).)
“[A] terminating sanction should generally not be imposed until the court has attempted less severe alternatives and found them to be unsuccessful and/or the record clearly shows lesser sanctions would be ineffective.” (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.) In extreme cases, however, terminating sanctions as a first measure are authorized. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1434.)
“[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. Super. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.) Dismissal is a drastic measure, and 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.)
Procedure
“To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method... the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose... [monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating] sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.)
Rice Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions Moving Party: Plaintiff Korean American Chamber of Commerce USA Responding Party: Unopposed Ruling: While terminating sanctions are not ordered at this time, issue and evidentiary sanctions are ordered as set forth below.
Jan 27, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
In the Reghabi Case, the Court issued terminating sanctions against Ahang Mirshojae and judgment against Ahang Mirshojae and in favor of Khosro Reghabi was entered in the amount of $390,274.24. Hamid Reza Mirshojae’s claims against Khosro Reghabi and Khosro Reghabi’s claims against Hamid Reza Mirshojae went to trial in February 2020. Hamid Reza Mirshojae obtained a judgment against Khosro Reghabi in the amount of $5,482,269.18 and prevailed against Khosro Reghabi’s fee claims (Reghabi Judgment).
Jan 27, 2021
Business
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
‘A decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.’ [Citation.] (Footnote 5 omitted.) Lee v.
Jan 26, 2021
Orange County, CA
A court may impose terminating sanctions by striking pleadings of the party engaged in misuse of discovery or entering default judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(d).) A violation of a discovery order is sufficient for the imposition of terminating sanctions. (Collison & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1620.) Terminating sanctions are appropriate when a party persists in disobeying the court's orders. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 795-796.)
Jan 26, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants The Hops, LLC and August move for terminating sanctions or alternatively for evidence or issue sanctions per CCP § 2023.030. 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.)
Jan 26, 2021
Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales
Los Angeles County, CA
On November 24, 2020, Defendant Anthony Kofsky filed the present motion for terminating sanctions. Plaintiff again has not opposed the motion. The failure to comply with a court’s order is discovery abuse for which terminating sanctions are authorized. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(g).) Terminating and sanctions are appropriate where there is outright refusal to comply with discovery obligations. (Deyo v. Kilbourne, (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 793.)
Jan 26, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
“Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders.” (Ibid. (citing Lang, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1244-1246); see, e.g., Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1617-1622 (terminating sanctions imposed after defendants failed to comply with one court order to produce discovery); Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins.
Jan 26, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
If Plaintiff does not comply with such order or flouts the discovery process in another manner, and Defendants file another motion for terminating sanctions in the future, the Court will consider issuing terminating sanctions. Issue No.2: Monetary Sanctions Code Civ.
Jan 25, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion for Terminating Sanctions 2. Application to File Portion of Documents Under Seal Moving Party: Defendant The Regents of the University of California Responding Party: N/A OSC re Dismissal. If the plaintiff fails to appear, the case will be dismissed. Ruling: Defendant The Regents of the University of California’s unopposed Application to File Portions of Documents Under Seal is granted. Moving party to give notice.
Jan 25, 2021
Orange County, CA
Plaintiffs also request evidence, issue and terminating sanctions. As stated earlier in this ruling, plaintiffs do not move to compel compliance with the May 28, 2019 and September 4, 2019 discovery orders compelling further responses to discovery. Failure to obey a court order compelling discovery may result in additional sanctions as are just, including evidence, issue, and terminating sanctions, and the court may also impose additional monetary sanctions.
Jan 22, 2021
El Dorado County, CA
Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, in which a consumer had brought an action for violation of the Song-Beverly Act, and the trial court had entered judgment on a jury verdict finding that the act had been unintentionally violated, but the court of appeal found that the trial court had abused its discretion in failing to impose terminating sanctions against defendant for violating discovery orders, in conduct characterized as stonewalling in producing “highly relevant documents.”
Jan 22, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, in which a consumer had brought an action for violation of the Song-Beverly Act, and the trial court had entered judgment on a jury verdict finding that the act had been unintentionally violated, but the court of appeal found that the trial court had abused its discretion in failing to impose terminating sanctions against defendant for violating discovery orders, in conduct characterized as stonewalling in producing “highly relevant documents.”
Jan 22, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court therefore concludes that Defendant has no meritorious arguments against terminating sanctions. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 487; Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 796-797.) The motion for terminating sanctions is granted. Conclusion and Order Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendant’s answers is granted. Defendant is in default as of this date. Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such.
Jan 21, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
., for terminating sanctions is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. A demurrer to the fifth cause of action was sustained with leave to amend but the plaintiff failed to amend the complaint within the time allowed. The fifth cause of action is DISMISSED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (f)(2).) The court granted the defendant’s discovery motion and the plaintiff has not complied with that order. Sanctions should be applied incrementally. Therefore, the motion for terminating sanctions is DENIED.
Jan 21, 2021
Orange County, CA
The Court DENIES monetary sanctions, as terminating sanctions are sufficient redress.
Jan 21, 2021
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales
Los Angeles County, CA
Conclusion and Order Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions is granted and the Court orders Defendant’s answer to the First Amended Complaint stricken. Accordingly, Defendant is in default as of the date of this order. Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this order and file proof of service of such. DATED: January 21, 2021 ___________________________ Michael E. Whitaker Judge of the Superior Court
Jan 21, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
The unopposed motion of the plaintiff for terminating sanctions as to defendants N & F Granite and Fine Flooring, Inc., and Francisco DaSilva is GRANTED, and the answer of both is STRICKEN. The plaintiff shall give notice.
Jan 21, 2021
Orange County, CA
However, the Court cannot conclude that terminating sanctions is appropriate at this time. Cross-Complainant has provided some discovery responses in response to Cross-Defendant’s discovery and orders. Thus, this is not a situation where a party has abandoned her case. Also, it is not clear that lesser sanctions will not produce compliance, as discussed below. Cross-Defendant mentions Cross-Complainant has not paid sanctions, but that it not a basis for terminating sanctions.
Jan 20, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs argue Defendant Ray of Hope did not paid sanctions, but that is not a basis for terminating sanctions. Even if Defendant Ray of Hope has produced documents, it has not responded to all of the discovery at issue in the 2019 and 2020 discovery orders. Defendant did not submit evidence that Plaintiffs agreed to the withdrawal of the discovery.
Jan 20, 2021
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
SEQUEIRA, LESTER – Defendant’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff’s Compliance with the Court’s Orders Imposing Monetary Sanctions and Request for Further Monetary, Issue, Evidentiary and/or Terminating Sanctions – GRANTED, in part; DENIED, in part, without prejudice. Under the circumstances, the Court declines to resort to the imposition of terminating sanctions at this time. However, Plaintiff is again ordered to comply with the Court’s previous orders awarding monetary sanctions to Defendant.
Jan 20, 2021
Stanislaus County, CA
City of Los Angeles On the Court's own motion, Hearing on Defendants John Bean Technologies Corp. and Tom Bradley International Terminal Equipment Company's Motion for Terminating Sanctions / Evidentiary Sanctions for Failure of Plaintiff to Comply With Court Order, to Compel Compliance With Court Order and to Submit to Mental Examination and to Pay Prior Ordered Monetary Sanctions; Request for Further Monetary Sanctions; Hearing on Defendant City of Los Angeles' Motion for Order Issuing Terminating Or Evidentiary
Jan 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Furthermore, the Court finds that terminating sanctions are inappropriate at this time. However, Plaintiff’s motion for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff requests $3,000 in sanctions. Plaintiff’s billing rate is $450 an hour and he declares he spent 2.5 hours to this Motion and anticipates spending 3 hours to review the opposition and draft a reply and 1 hour to attend the hearing.
Jan 20, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Terminating Sanctions Defendant seeks terminating sanctions due to Plaintiff’s failure to provide discovery responses and pay monetary sanctions as required by the Court’s January 21, 2020 Order. (Mot., p. 3:15-21; p. 5:1-5.)
Jan 19, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Because terminating sanctions are drastic, it is generally recognized that “terminating sanctions are to be used sparingly, only when the trial court concludes that lesser sanctions would not bring about the compliance of the offending party.” (R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 496.) Courts contemplating imposition of a terminating sanction should generally engage in a “balancing process,” (McGinty v.
Jan 19, 2021
Orange County, CA
The court having read and considered plaintiff’s unopposed motion to impose terminating sanctions on defendant David Rivera filed herein on December 16, 2020 and good cause appearing therefrom the court rules as follows. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. The Trial Setting Conference set for 1/20/21 at 8:45 AM is vacated. Further Case Management Conference Re Judgment is set for May 28, 2021 at 8:45 AM in Department 10A. Hon. George J. Abdallah Jr. Judge of the Superior Court
Jan 19, 2021
George J. Abdallah
San Joaquin County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.