This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/30/2020 at 03:43:09 (UTC).

IAN J. SINGER VS. WAYNE GARY SAMUEL

Case Summary

On 09/14/2017 IAN J SINGER filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against WAYNE GARY SAMUEL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WILLIAM D. STEWART. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7282

  • Filing Date:

    09/14/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

WILLIAM D. STEWART

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

SINGER IAN J.

Defendant

SAMUEL WAYNE GARY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorney

C.R. MCREYNOLDS ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Reply - PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

8/5/2020: Reply - PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

Brief - SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

7/21/2020: Brief - SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

Proof of Service by Mail

6/9/2020: Proof of Service by Mail

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

1/31/2020: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND/OR DEFAULT PROVE UP HEARING; H...)

12/20/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND/OR DEFAULT PROVE UP HEARING; H...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND/OR DEFAULT PROVE UP HEARING; H...)

10/4/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND/OR DEFAULT PROVE UP HEARING; H...)

Request for Judicial Notice

2/1/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Order - Order ON PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION

1/16/2019: Order - Order ON PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION

Minute Order - Minute Order (PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS STAYING PROCEEDIN...)

1/16/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS STAYING PROCEEDIN...)

Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application Application for Order Compelling Defendant to Appear for Deposition and Produce Documents

12/28/2018: Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application Application for Order Compelling Defendant to Appear for Deposition and Produce Documents

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv

9/14/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Complaint filed-Summons Issued

9/14/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Complaint filed-Summons Issued

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Order

4/27/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Order

Summons

9/14/2017: Summons

Civil Case Cover Sheet

9/14/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-02-05 00:00:00

2/5/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-02-05 00:00:00

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-04-27 00:00:00

4/27/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-04-27 00:00:00

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

6/18/2018: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

66 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/11/2021
  • Hearing01/11/2021 at 13:30 PM in Department A at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions (Filed by Pltff Ian J. Singer) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions Filed by Pltff Ia...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2020
  • DocketPlaintiff's Reply To Opposition To Supplemental Brief In Support of Motion For Terminating Sanctions; Filed by Ian J. Singer (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/31/2020
  • DocketOpposition (TO MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT;); Filed by Wayne Gary Samuel (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2020
  • DocketNotice (After Hearing); Filed by Ian J. Singer (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2020
  • DocketSupplemental Brief In Support Of Motion For Terminating Sanctions; Filed by Ian J. Singer (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/01/2020
  • Docketat 11:15 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Non-Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
107 More Docket Entries
  • 12/11/2017
  • DocketCivil Deposit; Filed by Wayne Gary Samuel (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2017
  • DocketDECLARATION OF C.R. MCREYNOLDS PURSUANT C.C.P. 430.41(a)(2); Filed by Wayne Gary Samuel (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/29/2017
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service (OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; OSC Discharged) -

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Ian J. Singer (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2017
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Ian J. Singer (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Ian J. Singer (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC067282    Hearing Date: August 14, 2020    Dept: A

The Superior Court is open under “Here for You | Safe for You” Conditions and Orders

Counsel are urged to use LACourtConnect, the court’s remote appearance technology (audio or video)

If it is indispensable for counsel to be present in court, face masks are mandated (unless a court orders otherwise) and social distancing rules are in force.

Singer v Samuel

Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Calendar:

11

Case No.:

EC067282

Hearing Date:

January 31, 2020

Action Filed:

September 14, 2017

Trial Date:

Not Set

MP:

Plaintiff Ian J. Singer

RP:

Defendant Wayne Gary Samuel

ALLEGATIONS:

Plaintiff Ian J. Singer (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he advanced $15,100.00 to Defendant Wayne Gary Samuel (“Defendant”) over period of time, but Defendant failed to satisfactorily perform legal services pursuant to an oral contract. Plaintiff alleges that he hired Defendant as an independent contractor and gave Defendant several legal assignments to complete, but Defendant failed to complete the assignments and to provide regular invoices.

The complaint, filed September 14, 2017, alleges causes of action for: (1) fraud and deceit (Count 1: false promise; Count 2: negligent misrepresentation); (2) accounting; (3) breach of contract; (4) common counts – money had and received; and (5) unjust enrichment.

PRESENTATION:

The instant motion for terminating sanctions was initially filed on February 01, 2019, and was set to be heard on March 01, 2019. At the March 01, 2019, hearing the Court continued the motion to May 10, 2019, pursuant to the telephonic request of Plaintiff. Thereafter, on the Court’s own March 25, 2019, motion, the date for the hearing was continued again until June 28, 2019, which was set for an OSC Re: Defendant’s Status of Bankruptcy, Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Bankruptcy, and CMC or Default Prove up Hearing. At the June 28, 2019, hearing the instant motion was continued again pursuant to the Plaintiff’s telephonic request – the new hearing date was set for August 09, 2019. Then, at the August 09, 2019, hearing Plaintiff’s counsel again telephonically requested a continuance pursuant to Defendant remaining in bankruptcy. The motion was continued until October 04, 2019, where the motion was continued to December 20, 2019.

On December 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice related to their obtaining relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay under 11 U.S.C. §362. At the December 20, 2019, hearing, Defendant appeared and represented that Defendant would provide discovery and attend his deposition. Pursuant to these representations, the Court continued the motion for terminating sanctions to January 31, 2020.

On January 31, 2020, Defendant represented that discovery had been produced and served, and that he would attend his deposition set on March 16, 2020. The Court continued the hearing to April 17, 2020, and waived notice.

On March 25, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and pursuant to the March 17, 2020, Administrative Order of the Presiding Judge, the Court continued the instant motion to May 29, 2020. Counsel for Plaintiff was informed telephonically and directed to give notice. A copy of the minute order was mailed to counsel.

On April 28, 2020, and in response to the continuing pandemic conditions, the Court continued the matter again, setting the motion for hearing on July 1, 2020. Counsel for Plaintiff was informed and directed to give notice, and a copy of the minute order was mailed to counsel.

On July 1, 2020, the Court continued the matter to August 14, 2020 and ordered Plaintiff's counsel to file a supplemental declaration and brief in support of the instant motion with briefing schedule per statute. Counsel for Plaintiff was directed to give notice.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiff Ian J. 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. App. 4th 566, 604, review denied (July 27, 2016). “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.” Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 262, 279–80, as modified on denial of reh'g (May 4, 2005). Subsection (d) specifically authorizes the Court to “strik[e] out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process… stay[] further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed… dismiss[] the action, or any part of the action, of that party… [or] rendering a judgment by default against that party.” Code Civ. Proc. §2023.030(d)(1)-(4). The rule that a sanction order cannot go further than is necessary to accomplish the purpose of discovery is some 35 years old in California, and is rooted in constitutional due process. (Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Superior Court (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 300, 10 Cal.Rptr. 377.) Newland v Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal. App. 4th 608, 613.

Notice

Plaintiff contends in its reply brief that service of the opposition brief was untimely because it was served by email on July 31, 2020, but due on July 30, 2020, nine plus two court days before the August 14, 2020 hearing. Pursuant to CCP § 1010.6(a)(4)(A), "If a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or facsimile transmission, electronic service of that document is deemed complete at the time of the electronic transmission of the document or at the time that the electronic notification of service of the document is sent." The Court thus finds that an opposition brief properly served by email is due only nine court days the hearing date. Defendant's opposition brief was due on August 3, 2020, pursuant to the August 14, 2020 hearing date. As the brief was filed on July 31, 2020, it is timely.

Merits

Plaintiff predicates the instant motion for terminating sanctions on Defendant’s failure to comply with three of this Court’s orders: First, the Court’s July 27, 2018 Order compelling Defendant to serve responses to Special Interrogatories; Second, the Court’s December 18, 2018, Order compelling Defendant to serve document responses; and Third, the Court’s December 28, 2018, Order compelling Defendant to appear for his deposition on or before January 10, 2019.

In its July 1, 2020 minute order, the Court stated: "The Court considers, however, that further failure of Defendant to comply with discovery would strongly militate in favor of granting the motion, as it would demonstrate that Defendant is continuing to engage in a pattern of disregarding this Court’s order and failing to comply with their duties under the Code. Alternatively, if Defendant has fully complied pursuant to their representation to the Court on December 20, 2019, this would instead militate towards denying the instant motion, as such circumstances would imply that Defendant had broken the pattern of discovery violations."

Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to provide proper responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and that terminating sanctions are thus warranted. Defendant argues he complied with court orders in responding to the discovery documentation, and Plaintiff now seeks further supplemental responses without properly filing a motion to compel further responses.

On review of the supplemental briefings, the Court finds that terminating sanctions are not warranted at this time. Plaintiff contends that Defendant did not serve proper responses but admits that he did obey court orders and comply with discovery, pursuant to the July 1, 2020 court order. (Supp. Mot., Exh. A, B.) Plaintiff's contentions regarding Defendant's purportedly improper responses do not support the terminating sanctions requested in the instant motion, but instead belong in a motion to compel further responses. Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion.

---

RULING: below,

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Plaintiff Ian J. Singer’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions came on regularly for hearing on August 14, 2020, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION IS DENIED.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE

Case Number: EC067282    Hearing Date: July 01, 2020    Dept: A

The Superior Court is re-opening under “Here for You | Safe for You” Conditions and Orders

Counsel are urged to use remote appearance technology such as Court Call or LACourtConnect )(when it becomes available on August 6 for Branch Civil)

If it is indispensable for counsel to be present in court, face masks are mandated (unless a court orders otherwise) and social distancing rules are in force.

Singer v Samuel

Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Calendar:

15

Case No.:

EC067282

Hearing Date:

July 1, 2020

Action Filed:

September 14, 2017

Trial Date:

Not Set

MP:

Plaintiff Ian J. Singer

RP:

N/A

ALLEGATIONS:

Plaintiff Ian J. Singer (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he advanced $15,100.00 to Defendant Wayne Gary Samuel (“Defendant”) over period of time, but Defendant failed to satisfactorily perform legal services pursuant to an oral contract. Plaintiff alleges that he hired Defendant as an independent contractor and gave Defendant several legal assignments to complete, but Defendant failed to complete the assignments and to provide regular invoices.

The complaint, filed September 14, 2017, alleges causes of action for: (1) fraud and deceit (Count 1: false promise; Count 2: negligent misrepresentation); (2) accounting; (3) breach of contract; (4) common counts – money had and received; and (5) unjust enrichment.

PRESENTATION:

The instant motion for terminating sanctions was initially filed on February 01, 2019 and was set to be heard on March 01, 2019. At the March 01, 2019 hearing, the Court continued the motion to May 10, 2019, pursuant to the telephonic request of Plaintiff. Thereafter, on the Court’s own March 25, 2019, motion, the date for the hearing was continued again until June 28, 2019, which was set for an OSC Re: Defendant’s Status of Bankruptcy, Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Bankruptcy, and CMC or Default Prove up Hearing. At the June 28, 2019 hearing, the instant motion was continued again pursuant to the Plaintiff’s telephonic request – the new hearing date was set for August 09, 2019. Then, at the August 09, 2019 hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel again telephonically requested a continuance pursuant to Defendant remaining in bankruptcy. The motion was continued until October 04, 2019, where the motion was continued to December 20, 2019.

On December 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice related to their obtaining relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay under 11 U.S.C. §362. At the December 20, 2019, hearing, Defendant appeared and represented that Defendant would provide discovery and attend his deposition. Pursuant to these representations, the Court continued the motion for terminating sanctions to January 31, 2020.

Then, at the January 31, 2020, hearing date, Defendant represented to the Court that discovery had been produced, and that he would attend his deposition. The date for the deposition was set for March 16, 2020, and the motion was thereafter continued to April 17, 2020.

On March 25, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and pursuant to the March 17, 2020, Administrative Order of the Presiding Judge, the Court continued the instant motion to May 22, 2020. Counsel for Plaintiff was informed by mail and directed to give notice. A copy of this minute order was mailed to counsel.

On April 28, 2020, and in response to the continuing pandemic conditions, the Court continued the matter again, setting the motion for hearing on July 1, 2020. Counsel for Plaintiff was informed and directed to give notice, and a copy of the minute order was mailed to counsel.

No opposition or other papers have been received by the Court regarding the instant motion between December 20, 2019, and the July 1, 2020 hearing date.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiff Ian J. 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. App. 4th 566, 604, review denied (July 27, 2016).) “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.” (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 262, 279–80, as modified on denial of reh'g (May 4, 2005).) Subsection (d) specifically authorizes the Court to “strik[e] out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process… stay[] further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed… dismiss[] the action, or any part of the action, of that party… [or] rendering a judgment by default against that party.” (Code Civ. Proc. §2023.030(d)(1)-(4).)

The rule that a sanction order cannot go further than is necessary to accomplish the purpose of discovery is some 35 years old in California, and is rooted in constitutional due process. (Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Superior Court (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 300, 10 Cal.Rptr. 377.) Newland v Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal. App. 4th 608, 613.

Merits

Plaintiff predicates the instant motion for terminating sanctions on Defendant’s failure to comply with three of this Court’s orders: First, the Court’s July 27, 2018 Order compelling Defendant to serve responses to Special Interrogatories; Second, the Court’s December 18, 2018, Order compelling Defendant to serve document responses; and Third, the Court’s December 28, 2018, Order compelling Defendant to appear for his deposition on or before January 10, 2019.

The Court has permitted Defendant the time between December 20, 2019, and March 16, 2020, to provide the aforementioned discovery to Plaintiff based on Defendant’s representation to the Court of their intent to fully complying to the discovery, and attend his deposition. As Defendant has at least partially complied with the Court’s orders in producing discovery by January 31, 2020, and represented his willingness and ability to attend his deposition on or about March 16, 2020, the Court will reserve ruling on the instant matter until the parties provide further information regarding the status of Defendant’s deposition.

---

RULING: below,

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Plaintiff Ian J. Singer’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions came on regularly for hearing on July 1, 2020, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION IS TAKEN UNDER SUBMISSION PENDING THE PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS AT THE HEARING.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE

Case Number: EC067282    Hearing Date: January 31, 2020    Dept: A

Singer v Samuel

Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Calendar:

11

Case No.:

EC067282

Hearing Date:

January 31, 2020

Action Filed:

September 14, 2017

Trial Date:

Not Set

MP:

Plaintiff Ian J. Singer

RP:

N/A

ALLEGATIONS:

Plaintiff Ian J. Singer (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he advanced $15,100.00 to Defendant Wayne Gary Samuel (“Defendant”) over period of time, but Defendant failed to satisfactorily perform legal services pursuant to an oral contract. Plaintiff alleges that he hired Defendant as an independent contractor and gave Defendant several legal assignments to complete, but Defendant failed to complete the assignments and to provide regular invoices.

The complaint, filed September 14, 2017, alleges causes of action for: (1) fraud and deceit (Count 1: false promise; Count 2: negligent misrepresentation); (2) accounting; (3) breach of contract; (4) common counts – money had and received; and (5) unjust enrichment.

PRESENTATION:

The instant motion for terminating sanctions was initially filed on February 01, 2019, and was set to be heard on March 01, 2019. At the March 01, 2019, hearing the Court continued the motion to May 10, 2019, pursuant to the telephonic request of Plaintiff. Thereafter, on the Court’s own March 25, 2019, motion, the date for the hearing was continued again until June 28, 2019, which was set for an OSC Re: Defendant’s Status of Bankruptcy, Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Bankruptcy, and CMC or Default Prove up Hearing. At the June 28, 2019, hearing the instant motion was continued again pursuant to the Plaintiff’s telephonic request – the new hearing date was set for August 09, 2019. Then, at the August 09, 2019, hearing Plaintiff’s counsel again telephonically requested a continuance pursuant to Defendant remaining in bankruptcy. The motion was continued until October 04, 2019, where the motion was continued to December 20, 2019.

On December 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice related to their obtaining relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay under 11 U.S.C. §362. At the December 20, 2019, hearing, Defendant appeared and represented that Defendant would provide discovery and attend his deposition. Pursuant to these representations, the Court continued the motion for terminating sanctions to January 31, 2020. No opposition or other papers have been received by the Court regarding the instant motion between December 20, 2019, and the January 31, 2020, hearing date.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiff Ian J. 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. App. 4th 566, 604, review denied (July 27, 2016). “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.” Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 262, 279–80, as modified on denial of reh'g (May 4, 2005). Subsection (d) specifically authorizes the Court to “strik[e] out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process… stay[] further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed… dismiss[] the action, or any part of the action, of that party… [or] rendering a judgment by default against that party.” Code Civ. Proc. §2023.030(d)(1)-(4). The rule that a sanction order cannot go further than is necessary to accomplish the purpose of discovery is some 35 years old in California, and is rooted in constitutional due process. (Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Superior Court (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 300, 10 Cal.Rptr. 377.) Newland v Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal. App. 4th 608, 613.

Plaintiff predicates the instant motion for terminating sanctions on Defendant’s failure to comply with three of this Court’s orders: First, the Court’s July 27, 2018 Order compelling Defendant to serve responses to Special Interrogatories; Second, the Court’s December 18, 2018, Order compelling Defendant to serve document responses; and Third, the Court’s December 28, 2018, Order compelling Defendant to appear for his deposition on or before January 10, 2019.

The Court has permitted Defendant the time between December 20, 2019, and January 31, 2020, to provide the aforementioned discovery to Plaintiff based on Defendant’s representation to the Court of their intent to fully respond to the discovery, and attend the deposition. Accordingly, as neither party has provided the Court with information as to Defendant’s compliance with their representation to the Court, the Court will wait until hearing from the parties the status of the discovery responses prior to issuing a ruling on the instant matter. The Court considers, however, that further failure of Defendant to comply with discovery would strongly militate in favor of granting the motion, as it would demonstrate that Defendant is continuing to engage in a pattern of disregarding this Court’s order and failing to comply with their duties under the Code, and that no lesser sanction will produce the desired discovery. Alternatively, if Defendant has fully complied pursuant to their representation to the Court on December 20, 2019, this would instead militate towards denying the instant motion, as such circumstances would imply that Defendant had broken the pattern of discovery violations.

---

RULING: Hear

---

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Plaintiff Ian J. Singer’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions came on regularly for hearing on January 31, 2020, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

HEAR THE PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS AT THE HEARING.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE