LAURA RAYMUNDO VS RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On¿August 30, 2017, Plaintiff¿Laura Raymundo¿(“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant¿Ralphs Grocery Company dba Food 4 Less¿relating to a July 3, 2017 slip and fall.¿On October 9, 2020, the Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s discovery responses and ordered Plaintiff to serve discovery responses and pay monetary sanctions of $520 within 20 days.  Defendant moves for terminating sanctions on the grounds that Plaintiff has disobeyed the October 9, 2020 order.  a

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.) 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).)  Misuse of the discovery process includes failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery or disobeying a court order to provide discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (g).)  A terminating sanction may be imposed by an order dismissing part or all of the action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d)(3).)  

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.)  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.)

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.)

Plaintiff filed no opposition to this Motion and it is undisputed she failed to served responses to discovery, failed to pay monetary sanctions, and disobeyed a Court Order to do so.  Defendant served a Notice of Ruling on Plaintiff.  Therefore, the Court concludes Plaintiff knew of her discovery obligations, knew of the Court Order compelling her compliance, and failed to show her noncompliance was not willful.  Given Plaintiff’s prior failures to comply with discovery obligations, failures to meet and confer with defense counsel, and apparent disinterest in prosecuting this action, the Court finds lesser sanctions would not curb the abuse.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s action is hereby dismissed.  As the Court is granting terminating sanctions it declines to also impose monetary sanctions.

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 8th day of January 2021

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On August 30, 2017, Plaintiff Laura Raymundo (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company dba Food 4 Less relating to a July 3, 2017 slip and fall.  On March 25, 2020, Defendant served Set Four of Form Interrogatories and Request for Admissions on Plaintiff.  To date, no responses have been received.  Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant’s responses to discovery requests, for an order deeming admitted requests for admissions, and monetary sanctions.

Compel Responses

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)   A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)  Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations.  (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

Plaintiff filed no opposition to this Motion and it is undisputed Plaintiff failed to serve responses to Defendant’s discovery.  Accordingly, the Motion to compel is GRANTED and Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories (Set Four) within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Deem Admitted

Where a party fails to timely respond to a request for admission, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)  The party who failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants them relief from the waiver, upon a showing that the party (1) has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subds. (a)(1)-(2).) The court shall grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

Plaintiff filed no opposition to this Motion for an order deeming admitted requests for admissions.  It is undisputed Plaintiff did not serve timely responses and it does not appear Plaintiff served substantially compliant responses prior to the hearing on this Motion.  Accordingly, the Motion to deem admitted requests for admissions is GRANTED.

Monetary Sanctions

Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c).)  Where a party fails to provide a timely response to requests for admission, “[i]t is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Plaintiff in the amount of $520.00 for two hours at Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate of $200.00 and $120.00 in filing fees, to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

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 9th day of October 2020