Stewart v. Home Depot U.S.A. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D066812 · 2015-11-18 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. 37-2013-00031103-CU-WT-NC
Trial judge: Jacqueline M. Stern
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: civil
Panel: Judith D. McConnell (author), O'Rourke, Patricia D. Benke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:04Z · confidence high

The trial court ordered the pro se plaintiff to respond to a request for production of documents and subsequently imposed terminating sanctions (striking the complaint) and monetary sanctions for her willful noncompliance. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rulings.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Order compelling response to request for production of documents “The record shows Home Depot propounded a request for production of documents, Stewart did not respond to the request, and Home Depot moved for and obtained an order compelling Stewart's response.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	agree with court The appellate court affirmed the judgment, which included the order to compel, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's handling of the discovery dispute.
Order imposing terminating and monetary sanctions for noncompliance “Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude the court abused its discretion in ordering Stewart to respond to Home Depot's request for production of documents or in imposing terminating sanctions for her noncompliance.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	agree with court The court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion because Stewart willfully disobeyed the order, had a history of abuse, and her noncompliance prevented Home Depot from preparing for trial.

Authorities

relied: Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377 — Establishes the standard for terminating sanctions and the abuse of discretion review for discovery orders.
relied: Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967 — Cites Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 regarding the authority to impose terminating sanctions for misuse of the discovery process.
relied: Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215 — Defines the abuse of discretion standard and the presumption of correctness for trial court orders.
relied: Kucker v. Kucker (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 90 — Limits appellate review to the face of the record when transcripts are not provided.
relied: Vitkievicz v. Valverde (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1306 — Supports the court's discretion to construe an appeal from non-appealable orders as an appeal from the subsequent judgment.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the abuse of discretion standard to the discovery sanctions and relies on established California authorities regarding the totality of circumstances for terminating sanctions. The court appropriately limits its review to the face of the record due to the absence of transcripts.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

The trial court granted Home Depot's motion to compel Stewart to respond to a request for production of documents and, after she disobeyed that order, struck her complaint as a terminating sanction and awarded $2,925 in monetary sanctions. The Court of Appeal construed the appeal from the nonappealable orders as an appeal from the ensuing judgment, reviewed for abuse of discretion on a judgment-roll record, found none, and affirmed with costs to respondents.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Order granting Home Depot's motion to compel a verified response, without objections, to its request for production of documents and production of responsive documents within 10 days “Here, the record shows Home Depot propounded a request for production of documents, Stewart did not respond to the request, and Home Depot moved for and obtained an order compelling Stewart's response.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court Stewart served no response at all to the request, which under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 is a misuse of the discovery process and waives objections; an order compelling a verified response without objections follows directly. With no reporter's transcript, review is confined to error on the face of the record and none appears.
Order imposing terminating sanctions (striking the complaint) and $2,925 in monetary sanctions for disobeying the order compelling discovery “the court specifically found Stewart had notice of the order compelling her to provide a verified response and produce responsive documents and disobeyed the order knowing the potential consequences.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court Section 2023.030, subdivision (d) authorizes striking pleadings for willful disobedience of a discovery order, and the trial court made express findings of notice, knowing disobedience, a history of discovery abuse, multiple informal attempts by Home Depot, and prejudice to trial preparation. The opinion does not expressly address whether lesser sanctions would have been futile, but on a judgment-roll record the presumption of correctness fills that gap and the result is defensible under Los Defensores.

Authorities

relied: Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377 — Terminating sanctions are authorized for misuse of the discovery process, including disobeying a discovery order; the trial court weighs willfulness, detriment to the propounding party, and the number of attempts to obtain discovery, and its decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
relied: Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967 — Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 authorizes monetary, issue, evidence, and terminating sanctions, including striking the pleadings of a party who misuses the discovery process.
relied: Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215 — Discovery sanction orders are reviewed for abuse of discretion, evidentiary conflicts are resolved in favor of the ruling, appellant bears the burden to show error, and the order is presumed correct on matters as to which it is silent.
relied: Kucker v. Kucker (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 90 — Where no reporter's transcript is provided, the appeal is treated as one on the judgment roll and review is limited to error appearing on the face of the record.
relied: Vitkievicz v. Valverde (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1306 — An appellate court may construe a premature or misdirected notice of appeal from nonappealable orders as an appeal from the subsequent judgment.
missed: Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262 — Discovery sanctions should be incremental and tailored to the harm; a terminating sanction should generally not be imposed unless lesser sanctions would be ineffective or have failed.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly identified the statutory basis for terminating sanctions, the abuse-of-discretion standard, and the judgment-roll limitation, and the trial court's express findings of knowing disobedience and a history of abuse support the result. It did not, however, expressly address the incremental-sanctions principle or whether lesser sanctions had been considered, which is a component of the very standard it quoted from Los Defensores.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 11/18/15 Stewart v. Home Depot U.S.A. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN 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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

LINDSEY E. STEWART, D066812 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2013-00031103- CU-WT-NC) HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jacqueline M. Stern, Judge. Affirmed.

Lindsey E. Stewart, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Lee Tran & Liang, Steven C. Gonzalez, Anthony D. Sbardellati and Lacey Rainwater, for Defendants and Respondents.

INTRODUCTION

Lindsey E. Stewart appeals from two orders: (1) an order compelling her to respond to a request for production of documents propounded by Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and Dorothy Perkins (collectively, Home Depot), and (2) an order imposing terminating and monetary sanctions for her noncompliance. Although these orders are not appealable (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1), we exercise our discretion to construe the appeal as being from the subsequent judgment, with the issues on appeal limited to the propriety of the two orders. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(d)(2); Vitkievicz v. Valverde (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1306, 1310, fn. 2.) Having reviewed the propriety of the orders, we discern no abuse of discretion by the trial court and affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

Stewart sued Home Depot, alleging causes of action for disability discrimination and tortious discharge/retaliation in violation of public policy. Home Depot subsequently served Stewart with a request for production of documents. The request sought production of 30 categories of documents related to Stewart's employment with Home Depot and the causes of action in her complaint.

Stewart did not respond to the request or produce any responsive documents.

After multiple unsuccessful e-mail exchanges seeking a response, Home Depot filed a motion to compel a response. The court granted the motion and ordered Stewart to serve a verified response to the request, without objections, and to produce responsive documents within 10 days.

After multiple unsuccessful attempts to obtain Stewart's compliance with the court's order, Home Depot filed a motion seeking terminating sanctions. The court granted the motion, struck Stewart's complaint, and awarded Home Depot monetary sanctions of $2,925. In reaching its decision, the court specifically found Stewart had 2 notice of the order compelling her to provide a verified response and produce responsive documents and disobeyed the order knowing the potential consequences.

DISCUSSION

" 'California discovery law authorizes a range of penalties for conduct amounting to "misuse of the discovery process," ' including terminating sanctions. [Citations.]

Misuses of the discovery process include the following: '(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. [¶] . . . [¶] (g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)" (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377, 390 (Los Defensores).)

"Code of Civil Procedure section … 2023.030 authorizes a trial court to impose monetary sanctions, issue sanctions, evidence sanctions, or terminating sanctions against 'anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process.' " (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991.) "As to terminating sanctions, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (d) provides: '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.' " (Id. at p. 992.)

" ' "The power to impose discovery sanctions is a broad discretion subject to reversal only for arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical action." ' [Citation.] The trial court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse 'after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to 3 obtain the discovery.' [Citation.] Generally, '[a] decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a 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, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.' [Citation.] Under this standard, trial courts have properly imposed terminating sanctions when parties have willfully disobeyed one or more discovery orders." (Los Defensores, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 390.)

"We review the trial court's order under the abuse of discretion standard and resolve all evidentiary conflicts most favorably to the trial court's ruling. We will reverse only if the trial court's order was arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical. It is appellant's burden to affirmatively demonstrate error and where the evidence is in conflict, we will affirm the trial court's findings. [Citation.] We presume the trial court's order was correct and indulge all presumptions and intendments in its favor on matters as to which it is silent." (Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1224; Los Defensores, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at pp. 390-391.) Additionally, since Stewart has not provided reporter's transcripts of the proceedings below, " 'we must treat this as an appeal "on the judgment roll." [Citations.] Therefore, … [o]ur review is limited to determining whether any error "appears on the face of the record." ' " (Kucker v. Kucker (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 90, 93.)

Here, the record shows Home Depot propounded a request for production of documents, Stewart did not respond to the request, and Home Depot moved for and obtained an order compelling Stewart's response. The record further shows Stewart 4 failed to comply with the order even though she knew about it, knew the potential consequences for noncompliance, and had ample opportunity to comply. The record also shows Stewart had a history of discovery abuse, including improperly attempting to obtain discovery via e-mail requests and filing patently untimely discovery motions.

Finally, the record shows Home Depot made multiple informal attempts to obtain the requested discovery and Stewart's failure to comply with the court's order effectively prevented Home Depot from adequately preparing for trial. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude the court abused its discretion in ordering Stewart to respond to Home Depot's request for production of documents or in imposing terminating sanctions for her noncompliance.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Respondents are awarded their costs on appeal.

MCCONNELL, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

BENKE, J.

O'ROURKE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez B240725 · 2014-01-24
Vitkievicz v. Valverde No. B229605 · 2012-01-25
Kucker v. Kucker No. B225165 · 2011-01-26
Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. G038734, G039274, G039624 · 2009-06-08
Williams v. Russ B194598 · 2008-10-27