ROSA LOMELI VS ERECTIONS UNLIMITED, INC.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****6639    Hearing Date: November 07, 2019    Dept: SEC

LOMELI v. ERECTIONS UNLIMITED, INC.

CASE NO.: ****6639

HEARING: 11/07/19

JUDGE: RAUL A. SAHAGUN

#7

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion for Terminating Sanctions as to Defendant AVRAHAM GUTMAN is GRANTED in part. CCP ;2023.030.

II. Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion for Terminating Sanctions as to Defendant EXPO DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT, INC. is GRANTED in part. CCP ;2023.030.

III. Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion for Terminating Sanctions as to Defendant ERECTIONS UNLIMITED, INC. is GRANTED in part. CCP ;2023.030.

IV. Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion for Terminating Sanctions as to Defendant SHARON TRUMER is GRANTED in part. CCP ;2023.030.

Moving Party to give Notice.

No Opposition(s) filed as of November 4, 2019. The Court notes that Defendants’ former attorney’s Motion(s) to Withdraw were granted on February 27, 2019. As of November 4, 2019, no Substitution(s) of Counsel have been filed/lodged with the Court.

CCP ;2023.010 includes: “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery” and “(g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery.” CCP ;2023.030 provides, in part: “To the extent authorized by this chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, may impose the [sanctions] against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process, including monetary and issue and terminating sanctions.” Failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery and disobeying a court order to provide discovery are both misuses of the discovery process.” (CCP ;;2023.010 (d) and (g).)

It is a commonly stated axiom that discovery sanctions “should be appropriate to the dereliction and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne

Plaintiffs seek terminating sanctions due to Defendants’ refusal to participate in the discovery process, and failure to abide by this Court’s July 2, 2019 discovery Order(s).

Where no Oppositions have been filed as of November 4, 2019, it is undisputed that Defendants are refusing to participate in the discovery process and have violated this Court’s July 2, 2019 discovery Order by failing to serve further verified responses to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories (set one) and failing to pay court-ordered sanctions.

The Court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted here. Defendants’ discovery responses were requested many months ago, and the number of outstanding discovery issues are not particularly extensive. Further, the information sought by Plaintiffs are important to the case. Defendants’ failure to comply with Court Orders, and blatant refusal to participate in this litigation, supports the conclusion that lesser sanctions would not be appropriate.

The unopposed motion for terminating sanctions is granted. Defendants’ Answer FILED on December 18, 2018 is STRICKEN. The Court denies monetary sanctions, as terminating sanctions are sufficient redress.