JASMA GARRISON VS JOSE EFRAIN MANZANARES

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On September 19, 2017, plaintiff Jasma Garrison filed this action against Defendant Jose Efrain Manzanares arising from a September 19, 2015 motor vehicle collision.  On January 15, 2020, the Court granted Defendant’s unopposed motions to compel further discovery responses and imposed sanctions on Plaintiff.  Plaintiff paid the sanctions but did not provide further responses as ordered by the Court.  

Defendant now moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to comply with the Court’s January 15, 2020 Order.  Defendant also requests issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions.  Defendant further requests monetary sanctions in the sum of $2,530 to be paid by Plaintiff and counsel of record.  

Where a party fails to obey an order compelling answers to discovery, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.”  (Code Civ. Proc., ;; 2030.290, subd. (c), 2023.010, subd. (c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.)

When imposing sanctions, the court should consider the totality of the circumstances, including conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful, the determent to the propounding party, and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain discovery.  (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.)  If a lesser sanction fails to curb abuse, a greater sanction is warranted.  (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.)  However, “the unsuccessful imposition of a lesser sanction is not an absolute prerequisite to the utilization of the ultimate sanction.”  (Deyo v. Killbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 787.)  

Before any sanctions may be imposed the court must make an express finding that there has been a willful failure of the party to serve the required answers.  (Fairfield v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 113, 118.)  Lack of diligence may be deemed willful where the party understood its obligation, had the ability to comply, and failed to comply.  (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 787; Fred Howland Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 605, 610-611.)  The party who failed to comply with discovery obligations has the burden of showing that the failure was not willful.  (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 788; Cornwall v. Santa Monica Dairy Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 250; Evid. Code, ;; 500, 605.)

Compelling Compliance

As an initial matter, Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff’s compliance with the Court’s January 15 2020 Order.  No such statute in the Discovery Act provides the Court with the authority to “compel compliance” with a previously-issued discovery order.  Indeed, Defendant’s motion cites to none.  

Monetary, Issue and Evidentiary Sanctions

The moving party need only show the failure to obey earlier discovery orders. Thereafter, the burden of proof 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.)  

Defendant’s request for sanctions is deficient because Defendant did not include evidence showing that the responses that were served were insufficient.  Defendant actually includes correspondence between counsel showing that discovery responses were served, but no evidence that the responses served did not comply with the January 15, 2020 Order.  (See Declaration of Stratton P. Constantinides, Exs.  B-F.)  Furthermore, a motion for issue or evidentiary sanctions must be accompanied by a ;separate document ;setting forth the particular discovery requests at issue, the responses thereto, and the reasons why such sanctions should be imposed. (CRC 3.1345(a)(7).)

Defendant’s request for monetary, issue, and evidentiary sanctions is DENIED without prejudice. 

Terminating Sanctions

The Court may impose a terminating sanction against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2023.030, subd. (d).)  A terminating sanction may be imposed by an order dismissing part or all of the action.  (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2023.030, subd. (d)(3).)  Terminating sanctions should not be ordered lightly, but are justified where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and there is evidence that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules.  (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.)

Notwithstanding the lack of evidence above, the Court notes that on July 9, 2020, a stipulation was filed to continue trial and trial-related dates.  Accordingly, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff has expressed disinterest in prosecuting this action.  

Defendant’s request for terminating sanctions is DENIED without prejudice. 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  

Dated this 4th day of August 2020