This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/17/2019 at 13:16:18 (UTC).

PATSY WEST VS ROSIE GRIER ET AL

Case Summary

On 06/15/2016 PATSY WEST filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ROSIE GRIER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3822

  • Filing Date:

    06/15/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Applicant

WEST PATSY

Defendants and Respondents

GRIER ROBIN

GRIER ROSIE

DOES 1 TO 10

ISOM SASCHA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

LAW OFFICES OF GUY R BAYLEY

Defendant Attorney

MEJIA MATTHEW RICARDO

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL-CIVIL

2/20/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL-CIVIL

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL-CIVIL

2/20/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL-CIVIL

Minute Order

2/27/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

3/13/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

3/14/2018: Unknown

Unknown

3/19/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

4/18/2018: Minute Order

NOT FOUND/NO SERVICE/CANCELED

6/25/2018: NOT FOUND/NO SERVICE/CANCELED

ANSWER TO ROSIE GRIER TO COMPLAINT

7/30/2018: ANSWER TO ROSIE GRIER TO COMPLAINT

Unknown

8/10/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

8/30/2018: Minute Order

Motion to Compel Discovery

1/29/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery

Response

2/20/2019: Response

Minute Order

3/19/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Motion

4/22/2019: Notice of Motion

SUMMONS

7/6/2016: SUMMONS

Minute Order

11/29/2017: Minute Order

Minute Order

12/15/2017: Minute Order

18 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/22/2019
  • Notice of Motion; Filed by Rosie Grier (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by Rosie Grier (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery"))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Defendant Rosie Grier's Motion to Compel Responses...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2019
  • Response (to Defendant's Rosie Grier, Robin Grier, Sasha Isom, Special Interrogatories); Filed by Patsy West (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2019
  • Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions; Filed by Rosie Grier (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
40 More Docket Entries
  • 11/29/2017
  • at 10:00 AM in Department 93; Final Status Conference (Final Status Conference; Continued by Court) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2017
  • Minute order entered: 2017-11-29 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2017
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2016
  • Summons; Filed by Patsy West (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2016
  • Request to Waive Court Fees; Filed by Patsy West (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2016
  • ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVER

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2016
  • COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2016
  • Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/15/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC623822    Hearing Date: December 06, 2019    Dept: 4A

Motion for Terminating Sanctions; Motions to Compel Supplemental Request for Production and Supplemental Interrogatories

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On June 15, 2016, Plaintiff Patsy West (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Rosie Grier, Robin Grier, and Sascha Isom (“Defendants”) alleging general negligence arising out of an assault that occurred on September 13, 2014.

On October 30, 2019, Defendant Rosie Grier filed a motion for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030.

On November 1, 2019, Defendant Rosie Grier filed motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Supplemental Request for Production and Supplemental Interrogatories pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, subdivision (b), and 2031.300, subdivision (b).

Trial is set for February 19, 2020.

PARTYS REQUESTS

Defendant Rosie Grier (“Moving Defendant”) asks the Court to impose terminating sanctions against Plaintiff for a variety of discovery abuses.

Moving Defendant asks the Court to impose $1,170 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in connection with the motion for terminating sanctions.

Moving Defendant also asks the Court to compel Plaintiff’s responses to a supplemental request for production and a request for responses to supplemental interrogatories.

Moving Defendant asks the Court to impose $1,017.50 in connection with the motions to compel written discovery responses.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 provides that, “[t]o 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 . . . .” California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 provides that “[m]issues of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: . . . (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery. . . .

“Discovery sanctions must be tailored in order to remedy the offending party’s discovery abuse, should not give the aggrieved party more than what it is entitled to, and should not be used to punish the offending party.”  (Karlsson v. Ford Motor Co. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1217.)  “Although the court has discretion in choosing a sanction, this discretion must be exercised in a manner consistent with the basic purposes of such sanctions, e.g., to compel disclosure of discoverable information.”  (Rutledge v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1164, 1193 (citation omitted).)  “Furthermore, the sanction chosen should not provide a windfall to the other party, by putting the prevailing party in a better position than if he or she had obtained the discovery sought and it had been favorable.”  (Ibid. (citations omitted).)

A court may not issue a terminating sanction for failure to pay a monetary discovery sanction.  (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 610, 615.)  Rather, a monetary sanction order is enforceable as a money judgment under the Enforcement of Judgments Law, California Code of Civil Procedure sections 680.010, et seq. Id. at p. 615.)

DISCUSSION

On March 15, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses to Moving Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production (Set One) within 30 days.  (Salomon Decl., ¶ 7, Exh. 4.Also on March 15, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to pay Moving Defendant $702.50 within 30 days.  (Ibid.On July 9, 2019, the Court denied Moving Defendant’s request for terminating sanctions and ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses to Moving Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production (Set One) no later than August 14, 2019.  (Salomon Decl., ¶ 10, Exh. 7.)  Plaintiff failed to serve the outstanding responses by August 14, 2019.  (Ibid.On October 2, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses to Moving Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production (Set One) within 20 days.  (Saloman Decl., ¶ 11, Exh. 8.)  Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s October 2, 2019 order.  (Ibid.)

The Court initially notes that Plaintiff’s failure to pay Court-ordered sanctions within 30 days of the March 15, 2019 ruling cannot be grounds for issuing terminating sanctions.  (See Newland, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at pp. 610, 615.)

Nonetheless, the Court finds terminating sanctions are proper here.  Plaintiff has consistently failed to abide by the Court’s orders. Moreover, Moving Defendant has brought additional motions to compel Plaintiff’s discovery responses.  It is apparent that Plaintiff has no interest in complying with her discovery obligations.  Plaintiff’s long-standing resistance to Court orders necessitates terminating sanctions.

Moving Defendant’s motions to compel are moot due to the issuance of terminating sanctions.  Monetary sanctions are unjust here because terminating sanctions adequately redress Moving Defendant’s woes in not receiving the requested written discovery responses throughout this year.

The motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The motions to compel are DENIED as MOOT.

Moving Defendant is dismissed as a defendant named in Plaintiff’s complaint.

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.