Judge James L. Crandall, Case 20-1166729 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: James L. Crandall, Case: 20-1166729, Date: 2022-08-04 Tentative Ruling

1. Motion to Compel Production

2. Motion to Compel Production

3. Motion to Compel Production

4. Motion for Reconsideration

5. Motion for Reconsideration

6. Motion for Reconsideration

7. Motion for Reconsideration

8. Motion for Change of Venue (Transfer)

1. Plaintiff Denise Thomas’s Motion for Reconsideration of the 3-1-22 Order Denying the Ex Parte to Continue the Discovery Motions is DENIED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, states, “(a) When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.”

New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal. App. 4th 206, 212, states, “Section 1008, subdivision (a) requires that a motion for reconsideration be based on new or different facts, circumstances, or law. A party seeking reconsideration also must provide satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce the evidence at an earlier time. [Citation.]” “The burden under section 1008 is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence: the information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it at the trial. [Citation.] Case law after the 1992 amendments to Section 1008 as relaxed the definition of ‘new or different facts,’ but it is still necessary that the party seeking that relief offer some fact or circumstance not previously considered by the court. [Citations.]” (Id., at pp. 212-213.)

Here, Plaintiff fails to raise any new facts, circumstances, or law. Thus, Plaintiff fails to meet the initial burden under section 1008 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Denise Thomas’s Motion for Reconsideration of the 3-1-22 Order Denying the Ex Parte to Continue the Discovery Motions is DENIED.

Defendants to give notice.

2. Defendant Merritt McKeon’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Against Plaintiff Earnest Calhoon filed on 4-18-22 under ROA 711 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310 provides that: “(a) On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: ¶ (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete. ¶ (2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. ¶ (3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general. ¶ (b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with each of the following: ¶ (1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. ¶ (2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. ¶ (3) In lieu of a separate statement required under the California Rules of Court, the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute.”

Section 2031.310 (i) provides that the court shall impose monetary sanctions against the unsuccessful party unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust.”

Most of the requests propounded seek basic discoverable documents. There is good cause to seek the documents requested.

Plaintiff’s objections are boilerplate and not specific at all. Further, Plaintiff does not provide a code-complaint statement of compliance or noncompliance. Plaintiff does not oppose the Motion and, therefore, does not justify any of his objections.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to all requests except for Request Nos. 1, 47, 48, and 49.

Request Nos. 47, 48, and 49 are vague and overbroad. Defendant’s request for evidentiary sanctions is DENIED but if Plaintiff does not comply with this order, the Court will exercise its discretion to award more severe sanctions in the future.

Plaintiff must serve further responses within 15 days of this order.

Further, the Court further grants $478.50 in monetary sanctions to be paid within 30 days of this ruling.

Moving party to give notice.

3. Defendant Merritt McKeon’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Against Plaintiff Denise Thomas filed on 4-18-22 under ROA 716 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Most of the requests propounded seek basic discoverable documents. There is good cause to seek the documents requested.

Plaintiff’s objections are boilerplate and not specific at all.

Further, Plaintiff does not provide a code-complaint statement of compliance or noncompliance. Plaintiff does not oppose the Motion and, therefore, does not justify any of his objections.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to all requests except for Request No. 20. For Request No. 20,

The request for evidentiary sanctions is DENIED but if Plaintiff does not comply with this order, the Court will exercise its discretion to award more severe sanctions in the future.

Plaintiff must serve further responses within 15 days of this order.

Further, the Court further grants $478.50 in monetary sanctions to be paid within 30 days of this ruling.

Moving party to give notice.

4. Defendant Eric J. Turkel’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Against Plaintiff Denise Thomas filed on 4-18-22 under ROA 720 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Most of the requests propounded seek basic discoverable documents. There is good cause to seek the documents requested.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to all requests except for Request No. 1. For Request No. 1, Defendant needs to explain how to obtain this information/these documents so Plaintiff can understand.

Defendant’s request for evidentiary sanctions is DENIED but if Plaintiff does not comply with this order, the Court will exercise its discretion to award more severe sanctions in the future.

Plaintiff must serve further responses within 15 days of this order. Further, the Court further grants $478.50 in monetary sanctions to be paid within 30 days of this ruling.

Defendants to give notice.

5. Plaintiff Denise Thomas’s Motion to Transfer Venue Under CCP 397, or Alternatively to Recuse Research Attorneys and Set Aside Orders, filed on 7/6/22 under ROA 861, is DENIED.

Defendants’ request for judicial notice, filed under ROA 869, is GRANTED as to the 10/27/17 Ruling of the Los Angeles Superior Court in Case No. 30-2015-00790365 and the 7/12/22 order of the Orange County Superior court in Case No. 30-2017-00924217.

Defendants’ objections to the declaration of Ernest Calhoon, filed under ROA 875, are OVERRULED.

Plaintiff moves to transfer this case to the Superior Court of another County under Code of Civil Procedure section 397(b), which states:

“The court may, on motion, change the place of trial in the following cases: [¶] (b) When there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had therein.”

Here, Plaintiff has not presented evidence giving the Court reason to believe an impartial trial cannot be had in this matter. Plaintiff’s counsel declares he had a dispute with a Court employee, Ms. Mejia, arising from a 2014 case. However, there is no relationship between this case and Plaintiff’s counsel’s dispute with Ms. Mejia which arose at least eight years ago.

Plaintiff has presented no evidence that any court staff involved in working on this case are unable to be impartial. Plaintiff has not cited any legal authority requiring court staff including research attorneys to be recused from this matter merely due to his dispute with another court employee years ago.

Plaintiff’s counsel argues that bias is evidenced by adverse rulings by other judges at this Court, stating, “I have not had a favorable ruling on a single tentative in a single case since this court’s research lawyers inserted my deceased father’s name in their tentative ruling.” (Calhoon Decl., ¶ 10.)

However, Mr. Calhoon does not state the name of his deceased father, state when this individual was referenced in a tentative ruling, or explain how such reference demonstrates bias. There are other plausible explanations for the dearth of recent tentative rulings in favor of Plaintiff’s counsel.

Even if Plaintiff’s counsel Mr. Calhoon could demonstrate a judicial bias against him, which he has failed to do, Mr. Calhoon has been disqualified from representing Ms. Thomas at trial, although he has been permitted to continue representing her in pretrial matters. (See 9/9/21 Minute Order.)

Mr. Calhoon has presented no evidence of the Court’s bias against him or Plaintiff Denise Thomas. Therefore, there is no evidence Plaintiffs cannot have an impartial trial before this Court and the motion is denied.

6. Plaintiff Denise Thomas’s Motion for Reconsideration of the 3-3-22 Order as to the Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted, filed under ROA 688, is DENIED.

Defendants’ objections to the declaration of Ernest Calhoon, filed under ROA 906, are OVERRULED.

Here, Plaintiff fails to raise any new facts, circumstances, or law. Thus, Plaintiff fails to meet the initial burden under section 1008 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff Denise Thomas’s Motion for Reconsideration of the 3-3-22 Order as to the Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted, filed under ROA 688.

Defendants to give notice.

7. Plaintiff Denise Thomas’s Motion for Reconsideration of the 3-3-22 Order as to the Motion to Quash, filed under ROA 689, is DENIED.

Here, Plaintiff fails to raise any new facts, circumstances, or law. Thus, Plaintiff fails to meet the initial burden under section 1008 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff Denise Thomas’s Motion for Reconsideration of the 3-3-22 Order as to the Motion to Quash, filed under ROA 689.

Defendants to give notice.

Future hearing events

9/1/22 – (10) Mtns. to Compel

9/26/22 – Jury Trial