ALMA DELIA JIMENEZ VILLEGAS, ET AL. VS VANESSA MARIE VENTURA

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC02027 Hearing Date: August 3, 2021 Dept: 26

Villegas v. Ventura, et al. 19STLC02027

MOTION FOR TERMINATING AND MONETARY SANCTIONS

(CCP\r\n§ 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Vanessa Marie Montano Ventura’s Motion for\r\nTerminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT HEREBY DISMISSES PLAINTIFF Alma Delia Jimenez Villegas’ COMPLAINT\r\nWITH PREJUDICE.

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiffs Alma\r\nDelia Jimenez Villegas (“Plaintiff”) and Luis Rey Perez Tapia filed the instant\r\naction for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Vanessa Marie\r\nMontano Ventura (“Defendant”) on February 25, 2019. Tapia was dismissed from\r\nthe action on December 3, 2020.

On January 12, 2021, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s\r\nresponses to request for production of documents. (Minute Order, 01/12/21.) The\r\nCourt ordered Plaintiff to serve responses to the discovery and pay monetary\r\nsanctions within 20 days’ notice of the order. (Ibid.) Notice of the\r\nruling was served on Plaintiff on the same date. (Certificate of Mailing,\r\n01/12/21.)

Defendant\r\nfiled the instant Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions on March 1,\r\n2021. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Discussion

Where a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, courts\r\nhave discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence or monetary sanctions.\r\n(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subds. (d), (g); R.S. Creative, Inc. v.\r\nCreative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) The court should\r\nlook to the totality of the circumstances in determining whether terminating\r\nsanctions are appropriate. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225,\r\n1246.) Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful\r\ndiscovery order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less\r\nsevere sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules. (Van\r\nSickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) “[A] penalty as\r\nsevere as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with\r\ndiscovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad\r\nfaith.” (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 707.) “The court\r\nmay impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders:

(1) An\r\norder striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party\r\nengaging in the misuse of the discovery process.

(2) An\r\norder staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is\r\nobeyed.

(3) An\r\norder dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party.

(4) An\r\norder rendering a judgment by default against that party.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).)

The Court granted Defendant’s discovery motions on January\r\n12, 2021 and notice of the order was served on Plaintiff the same date. To\r\ndate, Plaintiff has not served responses in compliance with the Court’s January\r\n12, 2021 order, nor paid the monetary sanctions as ordered. (Motion, Faal\r\nDecl., ¶4.) The court finds that\r\nterminating sanctions are warranted for Plaintiff’s non-compliance. Despite\r\nnotice of the Court’s order, Plaintiff did not comply, which the Court finds to\r\nbe willful. Furthermore, although Plaintiff was properly served with the\r\ninstant Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions, no opposition has been\r\nfiled.

Although terminating sanctions are a harsh penalty, the\r\nabove evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff’s compliance with the Court’s orders\r\ncannot be achieved through lesser sanctions. Indeed, it appears that Plaintiff\r\nhas no intention of complying with the Court’s orders or prosecuting the claims\r\nagainst Defendant. “The court [is] not required to allow a pattern of abuse to\r\ncontinue ad infinitum.” (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128\r\nCal.App.4th 262, 280.)

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.\r\nMonetary sanctions were previously awarded and remain unpaid. (Motion, Faal\r\nDecl., ¶4.) An additional award of monetary sanctions would be futile.

Conclusion

Defendant Vanessa Marie Montano Ventura’s Motion for\r\nTerminating Sanctions is GRANTED. THE COURT HEREBY DISMISSES PLAINTIFF Alma Delia Jimenez Villegas’ COMPLAINT\r\nWITH PREJUDICE.

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Case Number: 19STLC02027    Hearing Date: March 30, 2021    Dept: 26

Villegas v. Ventura, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2030.290, 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Vanessa Marie Montano Ventura’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories and Request For Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT PLAINTIFF PAY SANCTIONS OF $60.00 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiffs Alma Delia Jimenez Villegas (“Plaintiff”) and Luis Rey Perez Tapia filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Vanessa Marie Montano Ventura (“Defendant”) on February 25, 2019. Tapia was dismissed from the action on December 3, 2020.

On May 11, 2020, Defendant served Form Interrogatories on Plaintiff. (Motion, Faal Decl. ¶2 and Exh. A.) To date, Defendant has not received any verified responses to the discovery requests from Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶¶3-5.) Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Discovery Responses on October 14, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.

There is no requirement for a prior meet and confer effort before a motion to compel initial responses can be filed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.) Further, the motion can be brought any time after the responding party fails to provide the responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.) Due to Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the written discovery, the Motion is GRANTED as to Form Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objections within twenty (20) days’ service of this Order.

Defendant’s failure to timely respond constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Sanctions are appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 and have been properly noticed. However, the amount sought is excessive under a lodestar calculation. The court previously granted sanctions in a virtually identical motion to Compel Production of Documents on January 12, 2021. Thus, Tte request for sanctions is granted against Defendant in the amount $60.00 in costs. (Motion, Faal Decl., ¶6.)

Conclusion

Defendant Vanessa Marie Montano Ventura’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories and Request For Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT PLAINTIFF PAY SANCTIONS OF $60.00 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice. 

Case Number: 19STLC02027    Hearing Date: January 13, 2021    Dept: 26

Villegas v. Ventura, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2025.450)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Vanessa Marie Ventura’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition and Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiffs Alma Delia Jimenez Villegas (“Plaintiff”) and Luis Rey Perez Tapia filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Vanessa Marie Ventura (“Defendant”) on February 25, 2019. Tapia was dismissed from the action on December 3, 2020. Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Attendance at Deposition on December 7, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, section (a) states in relevant part:

If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) The motion must also “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice” and “be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (b)(1), (2).) A court shall impose monetary sanctions if the motion to compel is granted, unless the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or other circumstances would make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

Discussion

The motion is not accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating that defense counsel reached out to Plaintiff’s counsel to resolve this discovery dispute without the Court’s intervention. Specifically, the declaration must state “that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).) Rather, the supporting declaration merely states that following the Plaintiff’s failure to appear at her properly noticed deposition on November 4, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Motion. (Motion, Faal Decl., ¶¶2-5 and Exhs. A-D.) The Motion cannot be granted without moving party’s demonstration of an adequate meet and confer effort.

The Court further notes that the deposition notice includes a request for production of documents. (Id. at Exh. A, Exh. A.) However, the Motion fails to “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice,” as required under the moving statute.

In light of Defendant’s failure to comply with the mandatory requirements for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, the Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition and Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC02027    Hearing Date: January 12, 2021    Dept: 26

Villegas v. Ventura, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND SANCTIONS

(CCP §§ 2031.300, 2023.010)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Vanessa Marie Ventura’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff To Respond to Request for Production of Documents; Request For Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT PLAINTIFF PAY SANCTIONS OF $260.00 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiffs Alma Delia Jimenez Villegas (“Plaintiff”) and Luis Rey Perez Tapia filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Vanessa Marie Ventura (“Defendant”) on February 25, 2019. Tapia was dismissed from the action on December 3, 2020.

On May 11, 2020, Defendant served Request for Production of Documents on Plaintiff. (Motion, Faal Decl. ¶2 and Exh. A.) To date, Defendant has not received any verified responses to the discovery requests from Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶¶3-5.) Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Discovery Responses on October 14, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Due to Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the written discovery, the Motion is GRANTED as to the Request for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, to Request for Production of Documents, Set One within twenty (20) days’ service of this Order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.)

The Court also finds that Plaintiff’s failure to respond is a misuse of the discovery procedures. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, et seq.) The requested sanctions have been properly noticed but are excessive give the simplicity of this motions. Sanctions are appropriate in the amount of $260.00 based on one hour of attorney time billed at $20.00 per hour, plus a $60.00 filing fee. (Motions, Villegas Decl., ¶6.)

Therefore, Defendant Vanessa Marie Ventura’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to Request for Production of Documents; Request For Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT PLAINTIFF PAY SANCTIONS OF $260.00 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.