ACCELERATED INVENTORY MANAGEMENT, LLC v. MARLENA MCINTIRE

Case No. CL25-01012

Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions

Defendant MARLENA MCINTIRE moves for monetary and terminating sanctions against Plaintiff ACCELERATED INVENTORY MANAGEMENT, LLC.

The court has not received opposition to the motion.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 permits a court to impose various sanctions on a party that misuses the discovery process. Failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process, as is disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (g).) When selecting a sanction the trial court should consider both the conduct being sanctioned and its effect on the party seeking discovery and should attempt to tailor the sanction to the harm caused by the withheld discovery. (Doppes v.

Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.) Sanctions should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery. (Ibid.) However, if a lesser sanction fails to curb misuse, a greater sanction is warranted: continuing misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally harsher sanctions. (Ibid.) Where a violation is willful and 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 severe, including terminating, sanctions. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff failed to obey this court’s December 15, 2025 order to respond to Defendant’s form interrogatories and requests for production, set one within ten days. Plaintiff failed to pay the ordered $2,400 in monetary sanctions. Further, Plaintiff has a history of failing to appear at case management conferences or file case management conference statements, conduct for which Plaintiff’s counsel has previously been sanctioned. The court finds that terminating sanctions are warranted for Plaintiff’s abuse of the discovery process, failure to obey a court order, and failure to attend hearings or file required documents in this case. (See Moofly Productions, LLC v. Favila (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1, 11 [requirements for terminating sanctions met where party failed to respond to court order and failed to attend hearings].)

Defendant’s unopposed motion is granted. This case is ordered dismissed without prejudice.

SPIRO PISTIOLAS v. ERIK GIOVANNI FRAIRE and CINDY HEREDIA