Deyo v. Kilbourne
84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 149 Cal. Rptr. 499, 1978 Cal. App. LEXIS 1917 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may not impose the ultimate sanction of striking a party's answer and entering a default judgment for incomplete interrogatory responses if the party has filed some answers, unless a prior order compelling further responses was disobeyed and a finding of willful non-compliance without substantial justification is made.
Facts:
- In May 1976, Mr. Deyo, a lawyer, filed a complaint against Mr. Kilbourne, his former client, seeking to recover $1,411.87 plus interest for services rendered.
- Mr. Kilbourne filed an answer denying liability for the services.
- Mr. Deyo served Mr. Kilbourne with 39 interrogatories, many containing subparts, on August 3, 1976.
- Mr. Kilbourne was hospitalized for serious illnesses multiple times between early July and late September 1976, including renal biopsy, pulmonary embolism, cardiac decompensation, and jaundice.
- Mrs. Kilbourne wrote to Mr. Deyo on two occasions, advising him of her husband's serious illness and hospitalizations, and requesting extensions of time to answer the interrogatories.
- Mr. Deyo refused to grant an extension to November 1, 1976, and later threatened sanctions if answers were not filed within 15 days.
- A letter dated September 27, 1976, from Mr. Kilbourne's doctor indicated he would be "housebound" for an indefinite period.
- On December 15, 1976, Mr. Kilbourne filed answers to the interrogatories, but most were clearly not fully responsive to the questions, although some response was provided to each question and they suggested a dispute over the amount of fees.
Procedural Posture:
- Mr. Deyo filed a complaint in the trial court (court of first instance) against Mr. Kilbourne, seeking to recover fees for services rendered.
- Mr. Kilbourne filed an answer denying liability.
- Mr. Deyo served interrogatories on Mr. Kilbourne.
- Mr. Deyo moved the trial court to strike Mr. Kilbourne’s answer for failure to answer interrogatories.
- The trial court, through Visiting Judge Elconin, denied the motion for sanctions but ordered Mr. Kilbourne to file answers by December 15, 1976, threatening to strike his answer if not filed.
- Mr. Kilbourne filed answers by the deadline, though they were incomplete.
- Mr. Deyo filed a second motion requesting the trial court to strike Mr. Kilbourne’s answer, enter judgment for Mr. Deyo, require further responses, and award expenses/attorney fees.
- The trial court, through Judge Lodge, granted Mr. Deyo's second motion, striking Mr. Kilbourne's answer and awarding $300 in sanctions.
- A default judgment was subsequently entered against Mr. Kilbourne.
- Mr. Kilbourne filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- Mr. Kilbourne filed a timely notice of appeal to the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Barbara (intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court have the authority to strike a defendant's answer and enter a default judgment for incomplete answers to interrogatories, without first issuing an order to compel further responses and finding willful non-compliance?
Opinions:
Majority - The Court
No, a trial court does not have the authority to strike a defendant's answer and enter a default judgment for incomplete answers to interrogatories without first issuing an order to compel further responses and making a finding of willful non-compliance. The court clarified the distinction between Code Civ. Proc., § 2034, subd. (d), which applies when a party willfully fails to serve answers or objections at all, and § 2034, subd. (a) and (b), which apply when some answers or objections are filed but are deemed insufficient. Under subdivision (d), a court may impose sanctions, including striking pleadings or default, without a prior order to compel, but requires an express finding of willful failure. However, when answers, even if incomplete, have been filed, the propounding party must first make a timely motion to compel further answers under subdivision (a). If this motion is granted and the party still refuses to comply, then the court may impose the ultimate sanctions under subdivision (b). The court emphasized that sanctions must be "appropriate to the dereliction" and "just," and that drastic measures like dismissal or default should be employed with caution, generally reserved for persistent refusal to comply with discovery obligations after a clear court order. In Mr. Kilbourne's case, answers were filed, albeit incomplete, meaning sanctions under subdivision (d) were inappropriate. Instead, Mr. Deyo should have moved to compel further answers under subdivision (a). The trial court's order striking Mr. Kilbourne's answer was made after he had complied with a previous order to file answers (not an order for further answers), and there was no explicit finding that his failure to supply proper answers was "without substantial justification" as required for attorney fees under subdivision (a). Therefore, the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the procedural steps and limitations for imposing discovery sanctions under California law, particularly distinguishing between a complete failure to respond to interrogatories and the submission of incomplete or evasive responses. It establishes that the most severe sanctions, such as striking pleadings or default judgment, are generally reserved for willful disobedience of a direct court order compelling discovery, rather than for initial deficiencies. By emphasizing proportionality and requiring specific findings of willfulness or substantial justification, the decision acts as a safeguard against arbitrary and overly harsh penalties, promoting the efficient and fair administration of justice through discovery, rather than merely its punitive application. It underscores the principle that parties should have ample opportunity to rectify discovery deficiencies before facing case-dispositive sanctions.
