Joseph Construction vs. Kenney

8 25-01452596 Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication

Joseph Construction vs. OFF CALENDAR Kenney 9 22-01292736 Motion to Compel Production

Martin vs. The Stag Defendant The Stag Bar, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Compliance or Bar, Inc. Terminating Sanctions is GRANTED in part as to the request for terminating sanctions.

Terminating sanctions are appropriate when the “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.” (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279.) “[A]bsent unusual circumstances, such as repeated and egregious discovery abuses, two facts are generally prerequisite to the imposition of a nonmonetary sanction. There must be a failure to comply with a court order and the failure must be willful.” (Lee v. Lee (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1553, 1559.) “A trial court has broad discretion when imposing a discovery sanction.” (Ibid.) “The discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.)

Plaintiff was ordered to provide responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production, set two, on January 22, 2026 within 20 days and without objections. Plaintiff served responses with objections and without producing any documents on February 19, 2026. (Deng Decl., Ex. C.) Thus, her responses were late, failed to comply with the Court’s order, and importantly failed to attach the responsive documents. Defendant has contacted Plaintiff numerous times to request the responsive documents and Plaintiff has repeated failed to produce them despite promising to do so for over four months.

Further, Plaintiff failed to comply with the required pretrial filings which would have included producing her updated medical records when the trial was pending on April 13, 2026. Thus, Plaintiff has demonstrated she is unwilling to comply with her discovery obligations even when ordered by this Court or when trial is pending in less than a week. Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff’s violation is willful and less severe sanctions in the Court’s previous order were ineffective.