Source: https://trellis.law/ca/motion-type/motion-for-terminating-sanctions-332
Timestamp: 2020-07-11 01:38:24
Document Index: 527906427

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2025', '§ 2030', '§ 2031', '§ 2023', '§ 2023', '§ 2023', '§ 437', '§ 2025', '§ 2030', '§ 2031', '§ 2023', '§ 2023', '§ 2023', '§ 2023', '§ 1032', '§ 2023', '§ 2023', '§2023', '§ 2025', '§ 2023', '§ 2023', '§2023', '§ 2023']

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.)
Types of Terminating Sanctions
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.
(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.)
“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.)
Useful Rulings on Motion for Terminating Sanctions
AMY ALICE KENNEY VS FLOWER BUYER
Kenney v. Flower Buyer, et al. MOTION FOR TERMINATING AND MONETARY SANCTIONS; MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT / ADJUDICATION (CCP § 2023.010; CCP § 437c) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Flower Buyer’s Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff Alice Kenney is GRANTED AS TO TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND DENIED AS TO MONETARY SANCTIONS. THE COURT HEREBY DISMISSES THE COMPLAINT WITH PRE...
..ntiff’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Requests For Production of Documents, Set One; for Order Establishing Admissions; and for Monetary Sanctions. (Minute Order, dated 10/21/19.) On November 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication. Plaintiff filed the instant motion for terminating sanctions on November 21, 2019. To date,...
TIFFANY WYSINGER VS CHRISTOPHER DEMENNO
tiffany wysinger , Plaintiff, vs. christopher demenno , Defendant. Case No.: BC611903 Hearing Date: May 2, 2017 Time: 1:30 p.m. [Tentative] Order RE: Motion for monetary and terminating sanctions against plaintiff MOVING PARTY: Defendant Christopher Demenno RESPONDING PARTY: None Motion for Monetary and Terminating Sanctions Against Plaintiff The court considered the moving papers. No opp...
..ng discovery responses or attendance at a deposition, the court may impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions. CCP § 2025.450(h) (depositions); § 2030.290(c) (interrogatories); § 2031.300(c) (demands for production of documents). Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030 provides that, “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method . . . , the cour...
IRMA ESCOBAR VS WELLS FARGO BANK ET AL
Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. and Federal National Mortgage Association’s motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED as discussed below. On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff Irma Escobar filed the instant action against Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. (“Wells Fargo”), Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”), and Ndex West, LLC. The third amended complaint (“TAC”) alleges breach of a...
..On February 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed a declaration apparently in response to this issue. Former counsel for Plaintiff also filed a declaration in connection with this motion. On February 28, 2019, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding outstanding discovery and that discovery was to be provided by March 22, 2019. No further briefing was filed. Legal Standard If a party fail...
JOSETTE OKUMA, ET AL. VS MARY PHILLIPS
MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS (CCP § 2023.030) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Mary Phillips’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. ANALYSIS: I. Background On June 25, 2018, Plaintiffs Josette Okuma, Matthew Okuma, and Isaiah Okuma (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this negligence action against Defendant Mary Phillips (“Defendant”) for allegedly causing a car accident and injuring t...
..Terminating Sanctions (the “Motion”) on September 16, 2019. II. Legal Standard “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...
TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Allison Pink’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff Jamar Franklin’s action against Defendant is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice under CCP § 2023.030(d). Defendant is ordered to submit a proposed order consistent with this ruling, if she has not done so. I. Background On May 1, 2018, Plaintiff Jamar Franklin (“Plaintiff”) filed this negligence acti...
..endant filed Motion for Terminating Sanctions (the “Motion”) on December 31, 2018. II. Legal Standard “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. A...
..On February 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed a declaration apparently in response to this issue. Former counsel for Plaintiff also filed a declaration in connection with this motion. On February 28, 2019, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding outstanding discovery and that discovery was to be provided by March 22, 2019. No further briefing was filed. Legal Standard If a party fails...
Recent Rulings on Motion for Terminating Sanctions
1-25 of 4856 results
Civil - Unlimited (166)
Civil Court Trial (8)
Discovery Hearing (100)
Ex Parte (70)
Judgment Debtor Exam (Civil) (8)
Motion Hearing (Civil) (227)
Osc - Non-Sanction (7)
Trial Readiness Conference (Civil) (64)
Anthony Schoenberg (10)
Barbara A. Lane (26)
Benny C. Osorio (37)
Brad Kaplan (6)
Cynthia M. Lee (11)
Charles Geerhart (17)
D. Robert Shuman (4)
Daniel M. Crowley (13)
David Mcdonald (31)
David Worley (25)
Diana Kruze (7)
Donna Geck (40)
Douglas Robbins (12)
Ernest H. Goldsmith (55)
Elaine Lu (51)
Elaine Lu Or Yolanda Orozco (65)
Elizabeth Allen White (24)
Ernst Halperin (15)
Geoffrey Glass (11)
Georgina Torres Rizk (87)
Georgina Torres Rizk Or Jon R. Takasugi (31)
Gregory Keosian (44)
Gregory Lewis (19)
Harold E. Kahn (91)
Holly J. Fujie (68)
Irma P. Asberry (4)
J. William Mclafferty (5)
James T‘ Chou (1)
James E. Blancarte Or Wendy Chang (38)
James Fleming (9)
James L. Crandall (28)
Jeff Hamilton (11)
Jill Fannin (12)
Joel R. Wohlfeil (49)
John S. Meyer (55)
Jon R. Takasugi (75)
Judith Craddick (16)
Katherine Gallo (2)
Kenneth J Medel (30)
Kristin S. Escalante (44)
Loretta Giorgi (38)
Laura A. Seigle (83)
Lori Ann Fournier (34)
Marc D. Gross (69)
Margaret M. Niver (1)
Margaret Niver (5)
Mark Lehocky (10)
Mark Schreiber (6)
Melinda Derish (11)
Michael J. Raphael (23)
Michael P. Linfield (35)
Michelle Williams Court (43)
Mr. Paul Renne (5)
Nils Rosenquest (15)
Patricia D. Nieto (75)
Paul C. Lo (1)
Paul Renne (21)
Peter A. Hernandez (7)
Peter Catalanotti (10)
Peter Vanzandt (9)
Phil Andersen (9)
Ronald E. Quidachay (108)
Ralph C. Hofer (33)
Richard E. L. Strauss (42)
Richard S. Whitney (32)
Robert A Glusman (5)
Robert A. Dukes (12)
Robert C. Hight (7)
Robert Kane (12)
Roger Mead (5)
Rolando Pasquali (2)
Ronald L. Styn (37)
Sigrid Irias (5)
Stephen I. Goorvitch (99)
Stephen Zollman (2)
Steve Stein (7)
Steven B. Stein (3)
Steven Stein (27)
Theresa M. Traber (42)
Timothy Taylor (148)
Tom Cohen (13)
Tom Paoli (5)
Tony Schoenberg (4)
Trent Thornley (4)
Unknown Judge (1)
Vedica Puri (2)
Warren C. Stracener (20)
Wendy Chang Or Jon R. Takasugi (54)
William D. Stewart (46)
Yolanda Orozco (56)
Yolanda Orozco Or Georgina Torres Rizk (32)
Yolanda Orozco Or Laura A. Seigle (8)
Contra Costa County, CA (84)
Los Angeles County, CA (2,117)
Merced County, CA (32)
Napa County, CA (12)
Orange County, CA (433)
Placer County, CA (22)
Riverside County, CA (60)
Sacramento County, CA (42)
San Diego County, CA (579)
San Francisco County, CA (832)
San Luis Obispo County, CA (35)
Santa Barbara County, CA (124)
Santa Clara County, CA (19)
Solano County, CA (17)
Stanislaus County, CA (35)
Ventura County, CA (193)
Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 496, 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 353 [terminating sanctions properly imposed for repeated efforts to thwart discovery, including violation of two discovery orders].)” (Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1327.)
BARD VS DENNIS
Motion for Terminating Sanctions 2. Motion to Compel Deposition 3. Motion to Consolidate Cases for Trial 4. Review of Discovery Referee Order 5. Status Conference All matters are Continued to 10-9-2020
CHINN VS. COOKS COLLISION
HEARING ON MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS FILED BY COOKS COLLISION, INC. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Continued to 8/13/20 per minutes of 6/26/20.
SCHWAB VS GNS RACING
As such, the drastic remedy of terminating sanctions would not be appropriate. However, if this conduct continues, terminating sanctions might be appropriate in the future.
Absent the violation of a direct order, issue, evidentiary, or terminating sanctions are not appropriate at this juncture. Ruling The motion for sanctions is denied. Next dates: Notice:
MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS (CCP § 2023.010, et seq.) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Mol (American), Inc.’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is DENIED. ANALYSIS: Plaintiff Mol (American), Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for common counts against Defendant Inter Auto Trade, Inc. (“Defendant”) on November 6, 2018. A First Amended Complaint was filed on November 8, 2018. Defendant filed an Answer on January 14, 2019.
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, the court is empowered to impose monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions for misuse of the discovery process, which includes, but is not limited to, the following: (a) Persisting, over objection and without substantial justification, in an attempt to obtain information or materials that are outside the scope of permissible discovery. (b) Using a discovery method in a manner that does not comply with its specified procedures.
AGUILEO GUTIERREZ VS RAYMOND C. PERRY
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.)
WAGNER VS MERCEDES BENZ USA
Form interrogatory 15.1: The motion for terminating sanctions for failing to properly respond to form interrogatory no. 15.1 is denied. Terminating sanctions are a final measure to remedy repeated and egregious misuses of the discovery process. Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 992. Striking defendants' answers at this time would be procedurally and substantively premature.
HANK KYUNG KOO VS JONG OK LEE, ET AL.
A month later, Defendants filed a motion for terminating sanctions. The motion for terminating sanctions initially came for hearing on December 17, 2019 at which time the Court found Plaintiff had not been provided proper notice following Plaintiff’s counsel’s change of address. (Minute Order, 12/17/19.) The Court denied the request for monetary sanctions and continued the request for terminating sanctions to February 25, 2020.
This case was dismissed on a motion for terminating sanctions. On June 28, 2019, Defendant filed a motion for attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1032, 1033.5, 1717, and CRC Rule 3.1700(a). Defendant seeks $171,585 in attorney’s fees based on a rate of $450 per hour for 381.3 hours of work. Defendant also seeks costs of $4,710.88.
BOLADIAN VS NAUGLES CORP
On 8/19/19, this Court heard plaintiff’s motion for discovery terminating sanctions (based principally on plaintiff’s inability to secure deposition dates). Attorney Dickerson did not attend the hearing, nor did he file any opposition to the motion. This Court set an OSC, which Attorney Dickerson failed to acknowledge or appear for. Eventually, on 9/25/19, this Court was left with no alternative but to grant the request for terminating sanctions and strike defendants’ answer.
MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§ 2023.030; 2031.300) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Carl Chudnofsky’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED. However, Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED. In addition, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Provide Verified Responses to Requests for Production of Documents Set One and Request for Sanctions is PLACED OFF CALENDAR AS MOOT.
Therefore, the motion for terminating sanctions is DENIED. As to the alternative issue/evidence sanction, it appears to be based on the same alleged wrongdoings as above. For the same reasons, the alternative motion for issue/evidence sanctions is DENIED.
(consolidated w/ LAM17K03230) MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS (CCP § 2023.010) TENTATIVE RULING: The hearing on Marianne Strauther’s Motion to Dismiss is CONTINUED TO AUGUST 1, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. THE COURT ORDERS THAT ANTANESHA HASLEY APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION BY JULY 7, 2020. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN THE DISMISSAL OF ANTANESHA HASLEY’S COMPLAINT AT THE CONTINUED HEARING DATE.
To date, Plaintiff has not complied with the order; at this time, Defendants seek an order imposing terminating sanctions. 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.
DIANA SANDERS VS DALE LEAKE, ET AL.
Dale LeAke, et al. 18TRCV00139 Diane Sanders’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against Dale LeAke; Diane Sanders’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against Elliott Straite TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff Diane Sanders’ Motions for Orders for Terminating Sanctions Against Dale LeAke and Elliott Straite are denied without prejudice.
IAN J. SINGER VS. WAYNE GARY SAMUEL
Singer moves for terminating sanctions against Defendant Wayne Gary Samuel. DISCUSSION: Standard of Review Code Civ. Proc. §2023.030(d) authorizes the Court to impose terminating sanctions due to a party’s misuse of the discovery process. “A trial court must be cautious when imposing a terminating sanction because the sanction eliminates a party’s fundamental right to trial, thus implicating due process rights.” (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.
KELLY CHING, ET AL. VS ST. GEORGE AUTO GROUP (D.B.A. STG AUTO GROUP, A.K.A. STG AUTO AUCTION INC.)., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,
Nevertheless, the Court does not find that the circumstances warrant the imposition of terminating sanctions. First, no previous motion to compel Mr. Zia to appear for deposition has been granted. ((See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (h) [continued failure to appear at deposition after grant of motion to compel may result in more severe sanctions].) “[T]he sanctioned party's history as a repeat offender is not only relevant, but also significant, in deciding whether to impose terminating sanctions.”
TALINE KASPARIAN VS DENIZ J GOCKEN M D ET AL
On December 4, 2019, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions and dismissed the case. Plaintiff now contends that the action was improperly dismissed because she served responses on October 7, 2019 and Defendant had served a notice taking the motion for terminating sanctions off calendar on December 3, 2019.
MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS The court may impose terminating sanctions, include an order striking pleadings, and order dismissing an action, or an order rendering judgment by default against a party, for conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.) This conduct include “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an¿authorized method of discovery,” and “[d]isobeying¿a court order to provide discovery.” (Code Civ.
WAID VS RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, LLC
B) Motion for Sanctions Plaintiff’s Motion for Issue, Evidentiary, and/or Terminating Sanctions (“MFS”) is DENIED. In general, “[u]nder 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.
Motion for Terminating Sanctions A. Relevant Law Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 gives the court the discretion to impose sanctions against anyone engaging in a misuse of the discovery process. 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.
SAM ROTER VS VALEE KUNARGTHAI
ANALYSIS: Motion for Stay N/A Motion for Terminating Sanctions Standard of Review Code Civ. Proc. §2023.030 authorizes the Court to impose terminating sanctions due to a party’s misuse of the discovery process. Misuse of the discovery process includes a failure to respond to an authorized method of delivery and the failure to comply with a Court discovery order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)
However, the Court concludes that monetary sanctions would be futile, and, in any event, terminating sanctions are sufficient. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions is granted. Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant is dismissed with prejudice. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: June 29, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court