Terminating sanctions for discovery abuses in California are the topic of this blog post.
Requesting terminating sanctions for discovery abuses in California should be considered as a last resort and should only be requested when a party has failed to respond to several orders of the Court to respond to discovery.
This post specifically discusses requesting terminating sanctions for discovery abuses in California under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 for failure to respond to several orders of the Court to respond to an interrogatory or interrogatories.
Several years ago I worked on a case where the defendant had failed to serve any responses at all to an interrogatory, despite the court specifically ordering him to respond on at least two different occasions. The order requested was an order striking the answer of the defendant and entering a default again them. The order was granted, and as a result a huge default judgment in an amount well over $2,000,000.00 was entered against the defendant.
Because terminating sanctions are a very harsh remedy they should only be requested when the moving party can show persistent failure of a party to comply with a court order to respond to discovery, otherwise the motion is likely to be denied.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010(d), (g), and (i), “failing to respond or to submit to authorized methods of discovery”, “disobeying a court order to provide discovery”, and “failing to confer” are all misuses of the discovery process.
California Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.290(c) states, in relevant part, “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply: (c) …If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.
Courts including the United States Supreme Court have ruled that failing to respond to discovery creates a presumption that the resisting party is admitting a lack of merit in their claim or defense.
A California Court of Appeal has ruled in a published case that terminating sanctions are appropriate in situations involving a chronic pattern of delay or evasiveness by one party is severe enough to warrant denial of a trial on the merits. In that particular case terminating sanctions were deemed appropriate due to the persistent failure of a defendant to comply with the discovery orders made by the court resulted in a stay of discovery and a continuance of the trial.
And terminating sanctions have been deemed proper if the authority of the court cannot be vindicated by the use of a less severe sanction.
In fact, in one recent California Court of Appeal case an abuse of discretion was found where the trial court had not ordered any terminating sanctions during the trial even though it was aware that defendant had still not complied with previous discovery orders.
In Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal. App. 4th 967, 994, the Court ruled that the trial court abused its discretion by not ordering terminating sanctions during trial when it learned that defendant still had failed to comply with discovery orders and had failed to produce documents that should have been produced months earlier.
Although an extremely harsh remedy, in the right situation where the other party has demonstrated a persistent failure to comply with a court order to respond to discovery, requesting terminating sanctions can be a very effective remedy for discovery abuse.
Sample motion for terminating sanctions for discovery abuses in California for sale.
Attorneys or parties in the State of California who wish to view a portion of a sample 17 page motion for terminating sanctions containing brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration, and proof of service by mail sold by the author can see below
Sample Motion for Terminating Sanctions in California by Stan Burman on Scribd
Over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation for sale.
To view more information on over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation visit: https://legaldocspro.myshopify.com/products
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale.
Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.
Follow Stan Burman on Twitter at:
https://twitter.com/legaldocspro
Like the Facebook page for Legaldocspro at:
https://www.facebook.com/LegalDocsPro/
DISCLAIMER:Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.
The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.