TAYLOR HANOU V. RYLIE ATHENA MARTINEZ, et al.

Monetary Sanctions in the amount of $352.28 on the grounds that Plaintiff did not comply with

the previous court orders requiring the service of verified responses to written discovery

propounded by Defendants and failure to pay previous monetary sanctions awarded in relation to

the motions to compel those responses.

Plaintiff opposes the motion. Defendants do not reply to the opposition.

DISCUSSION

IV. Statement of the Law

Misuses of the discovery process include: “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an

authorized method of discovery[;]” and “(g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 states in pertinent part that: “[T]he 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, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

(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. The court may also impose an issue sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses.

(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. (2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed. (3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party. (4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.

V.

Analysis

Defendants state they were forced to move to compel the Plaintiff’s responses to her three

initial sets of discovery. Once the Court ordered that Plaintiff comply with these discovery

obligations, they state that Plaintiff was duty-bound to do so or face the more severe consequences

of a terminating sanction. Defendants then argue that when forming appropriate sanctions to

combat misuse, courts employ an incremental approach, taking into consideration a party’s history

of discovery violations and harm caused by the withheld discovery. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors,

Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992 (“Doppes”); Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. LcL

Administrators, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1106.) Defendants further argue that a

plaintiff’s complete defiance of a court order compelling discovery responses is sufficient to justify

terminating sanctions. (Stein v. Hassen (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 294, 301-302.)

In addition to the imposition of terminating sanctions, Defendants request $352.28 in

monetary sanctions against Plaintiff. This amount consists of 1 hour preparing this motion, 1 hour

in anticipation to prepare for and appear at the hearing; and at the billing rate of $146.14 per hour.

It also includes the cost of filing this motion, which is $60. (Declaration of Christie O. Beard, Esq.,

at ¶¶ 5-6.)

Plaintiff, in turn, provides her counsel’s declaration, attesting that responses were

electronically served on June 5, 2026. (Declaration of Mark R. McKinniss, Esq., at ¶ 2.) Plaintiff’s

counsel further declares that he is a sole practitioner and that health issues and hospitalizations

have directly impacted his ability to complete the discovery. (Id., at ¶¶ 3-4.) Additionally, he

advises that the monetary sanctions owed have been sent to Defendants’ counsel. (Id., at ¶ 5.) Mr.

McKinniss then apologizes for the delay in providing the verified responses discovery and

represents that he will be available to complete further discovery in the matter. (Id., at ¶¶ 6-7

[Erroneously listed as 76 and 8].) He also requests that the motion for an order of terminating

sanctions be denied as the outstanding discovery has been completed, payment of sanctions have

been sent to the Defendants’ counsel, and the trial date is set for March 29, 2027, which allows

them adequate time to complete all necessary written discovery, depositions of the parties, and an

IME of Plaintiff. (Id., at ¶ 10 [Erroneously listed as 11].)

Here, given that Plaintiff has complied with the Court’s Orders of March 12, 2026, the

Court DENIES Defendants’ motion as terminating sanctions do not appear appropriate. As

Defendants recognize, “[t]he discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery

sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.”

(Doppes, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.) And “[a] decision to order terminating sanctions

should not be made lightly.” (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262,

279.) As to the monetary sanction the Court finds that the circumstances make the imposition of

the sanction unjust because Plaintiff’s counsel’s delay was due to health concerns and Defendants

have suffered no prejudice because trial is not set until next year on March 29, 2027.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Order of Terminating and

Monetary Sanctions because terminating sanctions are not appropriate as Plaintiff has served

verified discovery responses and paid the awarded sanctions at issue. Additionally, the imposition

of sanctions is unjust given the circumstances that caused the delay.

Counsel for Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice.

6