Snyder v. Snyder CA2/6

Filed 8/23/16 Snyder v. Snyder CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

JOANNE SNYDER, 2d Civil No. B264773 (Super. Ct. No. 1466429) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

BARRY SNYDER,

Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Joanne Snyder appeals a judgment in favor of defendant Barry Snyder arising from a terminating discovery sanction.1 We reverse and remand. FACTS Joanne sued her former husband, Barry, alleging Barry breached a contract to pay for their children’s college expenses. Barry served interrogatories and demands for production of documents on Joanne on September 17, 2014. Joanne refused to provide complete discovery responses. Barry filed motions to compel further responses on December 5 and 23, 2014, and January 14, 2015. The trial court heard the motions to compel further responses on February 11, 2015. The court found that Joanne’s discovery responses were inadequate and that her objections were not made in good faith. The court continued the matter for one week to allow Joanne to comply with the discovery demands. 1 We hereafter use the parties’ first names for clarity, not out of disrespect. 1

At the hearing one week later, Joanne’s attorney represented to the trial court that he had mailed further discovery responses. The court continued the matter for another week. At the hearing on February 25, 2015, Barry told the trial court that Joanne had failed to produce all of the documents and answer all the interrogatories. Joanne claimed Barry’s discovery demands required the production of a large number of documents and invaded her privacy. The court rejected her arguments and ordered her to produce all documents and respond to all interrogatories by March 13, 2015. On March 11, 2015, Barry received answers to some, but not all, of the interrogatories. One day later, Barry sent Joanne a copy of the trial court’s minute order requiring her response to all interrogatories and demands for production of documents. On March 17, 2015, having received no further response, Barry filed the instant motion for evidentiary or terminating sanctions. Hearing on the motion was noticed for April 15, 2015. Joanne did not file her opposition to the motion until April 13, 2015, two days before the hearing. She claimed Barry did not send her a copy of the trial court’s February 25, 2015, minute order, and she promised further responses to his discovery demands. She also claimed that the discovery order was not clear. The trial court granted Barry’s motion for terminating sanctions. Joanne failed to comply with discovery demands, failed to comply with the court’s February 25, 2015, discovery order, and failed to file a timely response to Barry’s motion. The court concluded that a lesser sanction would not “get plaintiff’s attention.” DISCUSSION Joanne contends the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing her entire action with prejudice. The trial court has broad discretion to impose discovery sanctions. (Calvert Fire Ins. Co. v. Cropper (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 901, 904.) We appreciate the trial court’s frustration that led it to impose a terminating sanction. Joanne had ample opportunity to comply with Barry’s discovery demands. Instead, she forced Barry to file multiple motions to compel discovery and the trial court