King v. Tarver CA3

Filed 5/31/23 King v. Tarver CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

TED ARTHUR KING, C096365

Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and (Super. Ct. No. Appellant, S-CV-0042357)

v.

RUSSELL LEE TARVER,

Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent.

The trial court ordered plaintiff and cross-defendant Ted King, in propria persona, to produce documents and interrogatory responses, but he failed to do so. When King’s case proceeded to a jury trial, the trial court gave him several more opportunities to produce his discovery, but again, he did not. The trial court accordingly granted defendant and cross-complainant Russell Lee Tarver’s motions for evidentiary sanctions, precluding King from presenting witnesses and documents at trial. It then granted

1

Tarver’s motion for nonsuit and dismissed King’s complaint. King appeals, arguing the trial court erred by imposing evidentiary sanctions and granting the motion for nonsuit. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The record in this appeal is sparse. It includes neither the complaint nor the cross- complaint. From what we can surmise, the case arises from a dispute between acquaintances over payments related to one or more vehicles, and a leased storage space, which culminated in an incident in which King hit Tarver with his car door.1 King filed a complaint against Tarver. Tarver cross-complained against King, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, negligence, eviction, conversion, assault, and battery. On November 22, 2019, the trial court issued orders compelling King to serve responses to form interrogatories and to produce documents requested by Tarver no later than December 13, 2019.2 King failed to comply. On March 28, 2022, the parties appeared for a jury trial on the complaint and cross-complaint. The trial court ordered King to submit an exhibit list, jury instructions, and verdict forms, as he had not yet done so. The following day, Tarver objected to King’s proposed witness list and exhibit list because King still had not produced interrogatory responses or documents as required by the November 22 discovery orders. King represented that he had, in fact, previously produced the requested discovery but that he did not have the responses or documents with him that day. The trial court deferred the matter to the following day to allow King time to provide proof of his discovery responses. It further stated that it would “consider terminating sanctions, including exclusion of documents [and] witnesses if proof is not provided.” Tarver