Defendant distributor appealed orders from the Superior Court of San Joaquin County (California), which imposed monetary sanctions on the distributor for discovery misconduct in a contract action and subsequently struck the distributor's answer to plaintiff manufacturer's complaint and dismissed the distributor's cross-complaint.
The manufacturer alleged that the distributor owed money to it in connection with a joint venture. The distributor contended that the manufacturer had failed to pay commissions. After the discovery motion cutoff date, the manufacturer filed a motion to compel discovery without seeking leave from the trial court under Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.050, to reopen discovery. The trial court granted the motion and later sanctioned the distributor for failing to comply. The court held that the trial court abused its discretion under Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, by hearing the motion to compel without first deciding whether discovery should be reopened for that purpose under all of the relevant circumstances. A defendant in a criminal case has a Right to a Speedy Trial under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The trial court should have considered the manufacturer's reasons for seeking the discovery, as well as its diligence or lack of diligence. Equitable estoppel did not apply because the distributor's words and actions did not cause the failure to meet the discovery motion cutoff date. The error was prejudicial because it was reasonably probable that the trial court would have denied the motion to reopen discovery based on the unexplained delay and the marginal relevance of the documents.
The court reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the order that had imposed terminating sanctions and to vacate the imposition of monetary sanctions on the distributor.