De La Torre v. Peterson Bros. Construction, Inc.

CCP § 2023.010 states, in part, as follows: “Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: . . [¶] (d) Failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery. . . . [¶] (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery.”

CCP § 2023.030 provides, in part, as follows: “To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose the following sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process: [¶] (a) The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process. . . .(b) The court may impose an issue sanction ordering that designated facts shall be taken as established in the action in accordance with the claim of the party adversely affected by the misuse of the discovery process. . . .(c) The court may impose an evidence sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from introducing designated matters in evidence. . . .(d) The court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders: [¶] (1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process. . . .”

Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992, explains, “The trial court has broad discretion in selecting discovery sanctions, subject to reversal only for abuse. [Citations.] The trial court should consider both the conduct being sanctioned and its effect on the party seeking discovery and, in choosing a sanction, should ‘ “attempt [] to tailor the sanction to the harm caused by the withheld discovery.” ’ [Citation.] The trial court cannot impose sanctions for misuse of the

discovery process as a punishment. [Citations.] [¶] The discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination. ‘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.” ’ [Citation.] If a lesser sanction fails to curb misuse, a greater sanction is warranted: continuing misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally harsher sanctions until the sanction is reached that will curb the abuse. ‘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.’ [Citation.] (Footnote 5 omitted.)”

Lee v. Lee (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1553, 1559 states, “Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (c), provides that the trial court may sanction any party engaging in a misuse of the discovery process by prohibiting that party from introducing designated matters in evidence. A failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery may constitute misuse of the discovery process. [Citation.] Nevertheless, absent unusual circumstances, such as repeated and egregious discovery abuses, two facts are generally prerequisite to the imposition of a nonmonetary sanction. There must be a failure to comply with a court order and the failure must be willful. [Citation.]” (Emphasis in original.)

Here, on September 15, 2025, this Court granted Defendants’ discovery motions against Plaintiff. (ROA 114) Notice of Ruling was mailed to Plaintiff on 9/16/2025. (ROA 116; Decl. of Hampton ¶6.) At the time Defendants filed this Motion on January 14, 2026, no responses had been provided or sanctions paid. (Decl. of Hampton ¶7.)

On August 11, 2025, the Court granted Attorney Molly Hoot and Lipeles Law Group, APC’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff David Zazuela De La

Torre. (ROA 106.) The Proof of Service of that Order was filed on April 1, 2026 POS filed. (ROA 149.) This motion for terminating sanctions was originally on calendar for March 30, 2026, but continued for service on both Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel (in an abundance of caution). Defendants served the motion and notice of continuance on Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s (now former) counsel on March 30, 2026. (ROA 145, 151.)

It is unclear to this court whether Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the September 15, 2025 order is willful. The court therefore orders as follows:

1. The court orders counsel for Defendants to give notice of the court’s ruling to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s former counsel on or before June 5, 2026, and file proof of service of that notice.

2. The court orders Plaintiff to provide verified responses to Defendants’ Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, on or before June 19, 2026. These responses must be personally served or delivered by overnight delivery to be received by June 19.

3. The court orders Plaintiff to pay sanctions in the amount of $1665.00 to Defendants no later than June 19, 2026. Payment shall be in cash, certified check, cashier’s check, or similar method of payment.

4. The motion for terminating sanctions is continued to Monday, June 15, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. If item #1 above has been complied with, and items #2 and #3 above have not been fully complied with, the court will grant the motion for terminating sanctions without further notice. No further briefing will be accepted regarding the motion for terminating sanctions. 107 Elias v. Jensen 2020-01139897

Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories - GRANTED Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories - GRANTED Motion to Compel Production – GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART Motion to Deem Facts Admitted – GRANTED