Stewart v. Home Depot U.S.A. CA4/1 (2015) · DecisionDepot
Stewart v. Home Depot U.S.A. CA4/1
California Court of Appeal Nov 18, 2015 No. D066812Unpublished
Filed 11/18/15 Stewart v. Home Depot U.S.A. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LINDSEY E. STEWART, D066812
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2013-00031103- CU-WT-NC) HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Jacqueline M. Stern, Judge. Affirmed.
Lindsey E. Stewart, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Lee Tran & Liang, Steven C. Gonzalez, Anthony D. Sbardellati and Lacey
Rainwater, for Defendants and Respondents.
INTRODUCTION
Lindsey E. Stewart appeals from two orders: (1) an order compelling her to
respond to a request for production of documents propounded by Home Depot U.S.A.,
Inc. and Dorothy Perkins (collectively, Home Depot), and (2) an order imposing
terminating and monetary sanctions for her noncompliance. Although these orders are
not appealable (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1), we exercise our discretion to construe the
appeal as being from the subsequent judgment, with the issues on appeal limited to the
propriety of the two orders. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(d)(2); Vitkievicz v.
"Code of Civil Procedure section … 2023.030 authorizes a trial court to impose
monetary sanctions, issue sanctions, evidence sanctions, or terminating sanctions against
'anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process.' " (Doppes v.
Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991.) "As to terminating sanctions,
Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (d) provides: '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.' " (Id. at p. 992.)
" ' "The power to impose discovery sanctions is a broad discretion subject to
reversal only for arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical action." ' [Citation.] The trial court
may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse 'after considering the totality of the
circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the
detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to
3
obtain the discovery.' [Citation.] Generally, '[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.] Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions
when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders." (Los Defensores,
supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390.)
"We review the trial court's order under the abuse of discretion standard and
resolve all evidentiary conflicts most favorably to the trial court's ruling. We will reverse
only if the trial court's order was arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical. It is appellant's
burden to affirmatively demonstrate error and where the evidence is in conflict, we will
affirm the trial court's findings. [Citation.] We presume the trial court's order was
correct and indulge all presumptions and intendments in its favor on matters as to which
it is silent." (Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1224; Los Defensores,
supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at pp. 390-391.) Additionally, since Stewart has not provided
reporter's transcripts of the proceedings below, " 'we must treat this as an appeal "on the
judgment roll." [Citations.] Therefore, … [o]ur review is limited to determining whether
any error "appears on the face of the record." ' " (Kucker v. Kucker (2011) 192
Cal.App.4th 90, 93.)
Here, the record shows Home Depot propounded a request for production of
documents, Stewart did not respond to the request, and Home Depot moved for and
obtained an order compelling Stewart's response. The record further shows Stewart
4
failed to comply with the order even though she knew about it, knew the potential
consequences for noncompliance, and had ample opportunity to comply. The record also
shows Stewart had a history of discovery abuse, including improperly attempting to
obtain discovery via e-mail requests and filing patently untimely discovery motions.
Finally, the record shows Home Depot made multiple informal attempts to obtain the
requested discovery and Stewart's failure to comply with the court's order effectively
prevented Home Depot from adequately preparing for trial. Under these circumstances,
we cannot conclude the court abused its discretion in ordering Stewart to respond to
Home Depot's request for production of documents or in imposing terminating sanctions
for her noncompliance.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondents are awarded their costs on appeal.
MCCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, J.
O'ROURKE, J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the plaintiff to respond to discovery requests and subsequently imposing terminating sanctions for her willful noncompliance.
Issues
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the plaintiff to respond to a request for production of documents.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing terminating and monetary sanctions for the plaintiff's failure to comply with discovery orders.
Disposition. affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Having reviewed the propriety of the orders, we discern no abuse of discretion by the trial court and affirm the judgment.”
“The court granted the motion, struck Stewart's complaint, and awarded Home Depot monetary sanctions of $2,925.”
“Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude the court abused its discretion in ordering Stewart to respond to Home Depot's request for production of documents or in imposing terminating sanctions for her noncompliance.”