TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 6

Date: 9/16/2022

Case No: EC 067254 Trial Date: March 6, 2023  

Case Name: Block, et al. v. Doe, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES 

TO INTERROGATORIES

MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Moving Party: Plaintiff Dennis P. Block (Motion to Compel)

Defendant Basta, Inc.  (Motion for Sanctions)    

Responding Party: Defendant Daniel Bramzon (Motion to Compel) 

Plaintiff Dennis P. Block (Motion for Sanctions)    

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Motion to Compel

Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One 

Motion for Sanctions

Issue sanctions  

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Dennis P. Block, individually and dba as Dennis Block and Associates, as well as his associate attorneys plaintiffs Paul Eric Gold and Hasti Rahsepar , and his office manager, plaintiff Azam Riesen, allege that plaintiff Block is regarded as one of the pre-eminent attorneys handling landlord-tenant matters, and that defendant BASTA, Inc. and Daniel Bramzon previously defended defendant Brett Schulte in an unrelated eviction action brought by Schulte’s landlord, who was represented by Block. 

Plaintiffs allege that Schulte is an employee of BASTA, with his own e-mail address, and that defendants embarked on a campaign to harass, injure and defame plaintiffs, by sending hundreds if not thousands of emails to plaintiffs through Block’s law offices, and have undertaken to impersonate Block by creating and maintaining a website called “dennisblock.com” and the twitter account, “dennisblock,” through which defendants have utilized Block’s name and likelihood to mislead the public into believing disparaging remarks concerning Block, his family, his practice and his associates, including plaintiffs Rahsepar, Gold and Reisen.    Plaintiffs allege that this conduct was undertaken maliciously to cause plaintiffs injury to their reputations, credibility and livelihood and intrude into plaintiffs’ personal lives, and to ruin and destroy plaintiffs personally and professionally and obtain an unfair advantage against plaintiffs in their world of unlawful detainer practice. 

The file shows that on January 28, 2022, the court heard several discovery motions, including a motion to compel defendant Bramzon to provide supplemental responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.  Defendant was ordered to “serve further complete verified responses to Form Interrogatories, Set No. 1, Interrogatories Nos. 2.5,” among other interrogatories, “without objection, within ten days.”  Sanctions in the sum of $5,260 were also awarded in favor of plaintiff Dennis P. Block and against defendant Bramzon, payable within sixty days. 

On June 10, 2022, the court heard motions to compel further responses to discovery, including a motion brought by defendant BASTA to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two. 

The motion was granted and plaintiff Dennis P. Block, individually, and doing business as Dennis P. Block and Associates was ordered to serve further responses by July 28, 2022, regarding Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, Numbers 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, without objection.  The minute order further provides, “No responses are required if Plaintiff withdraws any and all allegations of economic damages.”  

ANALYSIS:

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories

Plaintiff Dennis P. Block seeks an order that the court compel defendant Bramzon to provide supplemental verified responses to Form Interrogatory No. 2.5, arguing that Bramzon has failed to serve appropriate responses to this interrogatory, despite being ordered to do so by the court’s January 28, 2022 order.  

Form Interrogatory No. 2.5 requests:

“State: 

(a) your present residence ADDRESS; 

(b) your residence ADDRESSES for the past five years; and 

(c) the dates you lived at each ADDRESS.”

Under CCP § 2017.010, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  The section specifically provides that “Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action,” and that discovery may be obtained “of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.”

CCP § 2030.300 provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

 (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

  If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully respond to discovery.  Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.  The granting or denial of a motion to compel is in the discretion of the trial court.  Coy, at 221-222.   A court should generally consider the following factors:

The relationship of the information sought to the issues framed in the pleadings;

The likelihood that disclosure will be of practical benefit to the party seeking discovery;

The burden or expense likely to be encountered by the responding party in furnishing the information sought.

Columbia Broadcast System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19.

The motion concerns one form interrogatory, which, as set forth above, requests defendant’s current and former residential addresses. 

The responses which have been served since the court’s order provide the address of a Postal Place FedEx shipping Center in Woodland Hills, which is obviously not the residence address of defendant, or no further response at all.  [See Roshanian Decl., paras. 8, 9, 11, Exs. E, I].  Through meet and confer, defendant has demanded an “offer of proof” before the requested information will be released.   [Roshanian Decl., paras. 15, 18, Exs. L, O]. 

This request is clearly not compliant with the interrogatory or this court’s previous order.  As argued in the moving papers, this is a Judicial Council approved form interrogatory.  Its purpose, at least in part, is to aid in the enforcement of any judgment which may be rendered in this action, which has become particularly critical in this case, as defendant has had monetary sanctions awarded against him, resulting in enforceable money judgments, and is taking the position that he must be personally served with documents to enforce those money judgments, and that his counsel in this action is not authorized to act on those matters on his behalf, but defendant must be contacted directly.  It is therefore particularly critical in this case that plaintiff be provided with defendant’s residence address.   

  

Defendant in opposition does not respond to these arguments or show how the responses are in fact non-evasive but argues that plaintiff has failed to sufficiently support a request for an order of contempt.   

The motion requests, in part, a contempt order and sanctions to be paid to the court, but defendant does not address the gravamen of the motion, which is a request for a further response to the interrogatory which complies with the court’s previous order.  The appropriate statutory authority for such an order is cited in the moving papers, and the criteria, as set forth above, is met.  Specifically, defendant has served an evasive and incomplete response to the subject interrogatory, providing not a residence address but a Federal Express location, and has failed to comply with this court’s previous order which expressly required that each further response, “must also comply fully with CCP section 2030.220: (a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.”  

CCP § 2030.210 provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following:

(1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered.

Under CCP § 2030.220:

“(a) Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

Obviously, defendant is well aware of his present and former residence addresses, so the information is reasonably available to him, and the opposition does not dispute this fact. The motion accordingly is granted, and defendant is ordered to provide the information requested by the interrogatory and ordered by this court to be provided forthwith. 

Monetary Sanctions

Moving party seeks monetary sanctions, and contempt sanctions to be paid to the court.  As argued in the opposition, plaintiff has failed to appropriately seek an order of contempt or contempt sanctions, including failing to personally serve the moving papers.  

However, with respect to a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories, CCP § 2030.300 (d) provides that the court “shall impose a monetary sanction...against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”  

 

In addition, under CCP § 2023.010, misuse of the discovery process includes “(f) Making an evasive response to discovery,” and “(g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery.”   Where there has been a misuse of the discovery process, under Section 2023.030(a), the court “may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.”

The burden is on the party subject to sanctions to show substantial justification or injustice.  Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990, 2nd Dist.) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436. 

Here, the further responses were evasive, and disobeyed this court’s order, and responding party has made these motions necessary.  The opposition argues that contempt sanctions are not appropriately requested, but does not address the main request for sanctions, or argue that there was any substantial justification for the evasive responses, or the violation of this court’s very clear previous order.   

Sanctions will be awarded to the moving party.  The sanctions sought in the moving papers are $9,360, in addition to contempt sanctions of $1,500.  The contempt sanctions are not awarded.  As for the sanctions for Discovery Act violations, the opposition argues that the sanctions are overstated and should be denied in their entirety or limited to one hour of time. 

The sanctions sought do appear to be high for a motion addressed to only one interrogatory, and which spends some time improperly and unsuccessfully arguing that contempt orders should be issued, particularly at the $600 per hour attorney fee rate claimed.  The declaration indicates that 4 hours were spent preparing meet and confer correspondences, and an additional 6 hours was spent preparing the motion, when much of the same argumentation and legal authority was used in each.  Four hours are also sought to review the opposition and prepare a reply, when the opposition does not address the main thrust of the motion, and the reply pointing this out should not be time consuming to prepare.  1.5 hours are also sought to attend the hearing on this matter, which will be heard at the same time as another discovery motion in this matter.  The sanctions awarded are adjusted accordingly, as follows: 1 hour for meet and confer; 3 hours to prepare motion; 2 hours to prepare reply; and zero hours to attend court hearing because plaintiff’s attorney will be in attendance to oppose defendant’s discovery motion.  Total attorneys’ fees are 6.0 hours at $600.00 per hour for a total of $3,600.00. 

Motion for Sanctions

Defendant BASTA, Inc. seeks an issue sanction against plaintiff Dennis P. Block, individually and dba Dennis P. Block & Associates on the ground plaintiff has failed to comply with the court’s June 10, 2022 order requiring plaintiff to serve further responses to requests for production of documents or to amend plaintiff’s complaint to withdraw allegations of economic damages.   Defendant seeks an order designating as established the fact that plaintiff has not suffered economic or business damages as a result of any alleged misconduct identified in the present action.   

As noted above, the court on June 10, 2022 heard a motion to compel plaintiff to serve further responses to requests for production of documents.  The requests at issue sought documents evidencing plaintiff’s responses to interrogatories which requested plaintiff to list all economic damages suffered by plaintiff as a result of each of the causes of action of the operative complaint which seek economic damages.   

The minute order addressing the motion states:

“Therefore, unless Plaintiff amends the FAC to remove the economic/business damages allegation, Defendant’s request compelling further responses and production of documents is warranted.”

[Minute Order, 6/10/2022, p. 7 of 9].  

The motion was granted and plaintiff Dennis P. Block, individually, and doing business as Dennis P. Block and Associates, was ordered to serve further responses by July 28, 2022, regarding Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, Numbers 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, without objection.  The minute order further provides, “No responses are required if Plaintiff withdraws any and all allegations of economic damages.”   [Minute Order 6/10/2022, p. 9 of 9].  

Defendant in this motion indicates that plaintiff has not served further discovery responses by the court ordered deadline and has not amended the complaint to withdraw any and all allegations of economic damages, as previously ordered by the court.  [Gharagozli Decl., para. 2]. 

Plaintiff in opposition argues that on July 28, 2022, plaintiff timely complied with the court’s order by emailing all parties, including moving defendants, and stating:

“Pursuant to the Court’s Order, plaintiffs agreed to withdraw the request for lost profits from the first amended complaint.  This should address your concerns.”

[Roshanian Decl., para. 5, Ex. B]. 

Defendant responded that sending an email did not comply with the court’s order.  Plaintiff then sent a proposed stipulation which states:

“Pursuant to the Court’s June 9, 2022 order, Plaintiffs will not seek economic damages for lost profits pled under the first amended complaint, and therefore withdraw any allegations of lost profits from the first amended complaint outside of those economic damages that are presumed.”

[Roshanian Decl., para., Ex. B, “Joint Stipulation.”]

Defendant argues that plaintiff has failed to comply with the court order and is attempting to distort the order to evade the obligation to serve further responses to discovery while maintaining some of the complaint’s economic allegations.  

Plaintiff argues that plaintiff has complied with the court’s order, and that defendant seeks to expand the order by claiming that plaintiff cannot recover presumed economic damages as a result of defendant’s libel per se.  Plaintiff indicates that plaintiff has agreed not to present evidence of actual damages, but that since damages are presumed in a libel per se claim, plaintiff need not prove actual damages by evidence.  Plaintiff appears to want to continue to allege presumed damages in connection with the libel per se cause of action but agrees not to seek to introduce evidence of economic damages throughout this action or at trial. 

Plaintiff cites to Civil Code section 48a(d)(1), which defines “General damages,” in a defamation case to mean “damages for loss of reputation, shame, mortification, and hurt feelings.”  

Plaintiff relies on Contento v. Mitchell (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 356, 358, in which the court of appeal observed, it is “well-settled that in an action for damages based on language defamatory per se, damage to the plaintiff’s reputation is conclusively presumed and he need not introduce any evidence of actual damages in order to obtain or sustain an award of damages.”  

Plaintiff also cites Di Giorgio Fruit Corp. v. American Federation of Labor and Congress of Indus. Organizations (1963) 215 Cal.2d 560, 577, in which the court of appeal stated, “one guilty of libel per se is liable to the person libeled for at least nominal damages.”     

It would appear that plaintiff may be conceding here in pursuing the libel per se cause of action plaintiff will not be seeking economic damages and will agree not to introduce any evidence of economic damages, in exchange for not having to further respond to document demands for documents supporting such economic damages.  Plaintiff evidently has some concern with amending the FAC as to this cause of action only based on the presumed damage arising in such a claim.  What would appear to be appropriate here is an evidence sanction.   

Defendant does not appear to be entitled to the issue sanction sought, in effect, an order that plaintiff has not suffered economic damages, as plaintiff is only choosing not to pursue such damages in this action and has not conceded defendant’s conduct did not cause economic damages.   

Plaintiff has not made plaintiff’s position entirely clear and did not by the deadline either serve further responses to the discovery, or amend the pleading as ordered, and seems to still be resisting the order to amend. 

Under CCP § 2031.300 (c), if a party “fails to obey” a court order compelling a response to a demand for documents, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).”   

Under section 2023.010, “misuse of the discovery process” includes “(g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery.”   

Where there has been such conduct, under CCP section 2023.030 (b), the court may impose evidence or issue sanctions:

“(b) The court may impose an issue sanction ordering the designated facts shall be taken as established in the action in accordance with the claim of the party adversely affected by the misuse of the discovery process.  The court may also impose an issue sanction by an order prohibiting any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses.

(c)   The court may impose an evidence sanction by an order prohibiting a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process from introducing designated matters in evidence.” 

Where a court order has been disobeyed, the choice of sanction is within the court’s discretion and will only be set aside for abuse of discretion.  Sauer v. Superior Court (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 213, 228.  A trial court’s finding concerning disobedience of its order will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence.  Id.  

In Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771 the Second District in Deyo set out factors which may be relevant in deciding whether to impose sanctions and which sanction to impose:

“In exercising this discretion, a variety of factors may be relevant, including, 1) the time which has elapsed since interrogatories were served, 2) whether the party served was previously given a voluntary extension of time, 3) the number of interrogatories propounded, 4) whether the unanswered questions sought information which was difficult to obtain, 5) whether the answers supplied were evasive and incomplete, 6) the number of questions which remain unanswered, 7) whether the questions which remain unanswered are material to a particular claim or defense, 8) whether the answering party has acted in good faith, and with reasonable diligence, 9) the existence of prior orders compelling discovery and the answering party's response thereto, 10) whether the party was unable to comply with the previous order of the court, 11) whether an order allowing more time to answer would enable the answering party to supply the necessary information, and, 12) whether a sanction short of dismissal or default would be appropriate to the dereliction.”

Deyo, at 796-797.

The Second District in Deyo noted: 

“The penalty should be appropriate to the dereliction and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery. Where a motion to comp[el has previously been granted, the sanction should not operate in such a fashion as to put the prevailing party in a better position than he would have had if he had obtained the discovery sought and it had been completely favorable to his cause.” 

Deyo, at 793, citation omitted.    

The purpose of the Discovery Act is to facilitate discovery with the view toward conducting trial on the merits: “One of the principal purposes of the Discovery Act...is to enable a party to obtain evidence in the control of his adversary in order to further the efficient, economical disposition of cases according to right and justice on the merits.”   Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Superior Court (1961, 2nd Dist.) 188 Cal.App.2d 300, 303 (emphasis in the original).  Accordingly, Caryl Richards is often quoted in sanctions opinions: “The sanctions the court may impose are such as are suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery, he seeks but the court may not impose sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of discovery but to impose punishment.”  Caryl Richards,.at 304, citations omitted; see, e.g., Motown Records Corp. v. Superior Court (1984, 2nd Dist.) 155 Cal.App.3d 482, 489.   

The motion indicates that the discovery involved includes fourteen document demands, which are material to this matter, as the court has already observed they call for information directly relevant to any claims of economic and business damages.   The information should be easily obtainable, as plaintiff could supply revenue evidence from before and after the alleged defamatory acts.  Plaintiff has been provided a reasonable time to comply with the discovery requests and this court’s order.   

The appropriate order here would be an evidence sanction prohibiting plaintiff from introducing evidence in this matter in support of the economic damages to which the subject discovery pertains.  The discovery seeks documents in support of lists concerning economic damages referenced in interrogatories. The parties appear to agree that plaintiff must either serve further responses to the document demands or withdraw claims for economic damages which the evidence withheld would support. The court will accordingly issue an evidence sanction pursuant to which plaintiff will be prohibited from introducing designated matters in evidence, that is, from introducing any evidence concerning economic damages, as defined in defendant’s discovery.  The discovery states:

“the phrase ‘economic damages’ as used herein shall mean past and future medical expenses, medical monitoring as a result of toxic exposure, past and future lost earnings, lost earning capacity, loss of ability to provide household services, damage to real property, loss of use of real property, damage to annual crop, damage to perennial crop, damage to personal property, loss or destruction of personal property, damage to personal property having special value pursuant to California Civil Code section 3355, loss of use of personal property, lost profits, injury to pet and related costs of treatment, damages from employer for wrongful discharge, survival damages pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34.”  

 

The evidence sanction best places defendant in the same position defendant would otherwise have been in if the evidence had been produced in discovery and was favorable to defendant. 

Monetary Sanctions

Both sides seek monetary sanctions. 

CCP § 2031.310(e) provides that for failure to obey a court order compelling further responses to document demands, “In lieu of or in addition to” an issue, evidence or terminating sanction, “the court may impose a monetary sanctions under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010.”  

As noted above, CCP § 2023.010 defines misuse of the discovery process to include “(g) Disobeying a court order to provide discovery.”    Where there has been a misuse of the discovery process, under CCP section 2023.030 (a) the court “may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.... If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”   

In this case, plaintiff has failed to obey a court order and defendant has provided evidence that it has been forced to incur expense due to this conduct.   Once plaintiff realized that plaintiff had an issue with the libel per se cause of action, plaintiff should have sought relief from the court rather than prolonging the failure to obey the court order, such that defendant was forced to undertake the expense of seeking court intervention.    

The sanctions sought are $6,300, which are high for a motion of this nature.  Defendant seeks substantial time to prepare the moving papers and reply, and 2.5 hours to attend the hearing, when the hearing will be held with another discovery motion.  The sanctions will be adjusted to a reasonable sum accordingly as follows: 3 hours preparing moving papers; 2 hours for reply and zero hours for attending hearing when defendant will be attending hearing to oppose plaintiff’s discovery motion.  Total attorneys’ fees are 5.0 hours at $450.00 per hour for total attorneys’ fees of $2,250.00.  

No sanctions will be awarded to plaintiff as requested in the opposition papers.  

RULING:

Motion for Order Compelling Defendant Bramzon’s Further Verified Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Form Interrogatories in Violation of Court Order is GRANTED.

Defendant Daniel Bramzon is ordered to serve a further verified response to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Interrogatory No. 2.5, without objection, within three days. The further response must fully comply with the Discovery Act, and this Court’s January 28, 2022 court order, that is, the response must provide defendant’s residence addresses, and fully comply with CCP § 2030.210 (a)(1), providing an answer “containing the information sought to be discovered,” and also comply with CCP § 2030.220, including subdivision (a): “Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.”  The Court is confident that defendant’s own residence addresses are reasonably available to defendant.   

Further responses to be served within three days. 

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the

totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s

fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $3,600.00 (6.0 hours @ $600/hour) (15.5 hours requested), in addition to filing fees of $60.00 ($60 requested) [Total Amount Requested $9,360], which sum is to be awarded in favor plaintiff Dennis P. Block and against defendant Daniel Bramzon, payable within 30 days. CCP §§ 2030.300(c), 2023.010 (f) and (g), and 2023.030(a).  

Request for order of contempt and contempt sanctions is DENIED. 

Motion for Issue Sanctions is GRANTED.    Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s order of June 10, 2022, requiring plaintiff Dennis P. Block, individually, and doing business as Dennis P. Block and Associates, to serve further responses by July 28, 2022, regarding Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, Numbers 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, without objection, or to withdraw any and all allegations of economic damages.  The Court has reviewed the positions of the parties and finds that the appropriate sanction is an evidence sanction.   The Court therefore enters an evidentiary sanction pursuant to which plaintiff Dennis P. Block, individually, and doing business as Dennis P. Block and Associates, will be prohibited  from entering into evidence in this matter any documents which should have been disclosed in response to any of the subject Document Requests, that is, plaintiff will be prohibited from entering into evidence in this matter any documents concerning claimed economic damages, with the term “economic damages” defined as to mean past and future medical expenses, medical monitoring as a result of toxic exposure, past and future lost earnings, lost earning capacity, loss of ability to provide household services, damage to real property, loss of use of real property, damage to annual crop, damage to perennial crop, damage to personal property, loss or destruction of personal property, damage to personal property having special value pursuant to California Civil Code section 3355, loss of use of personal property, lost profits, injury to pet and related costs of treatment, damages from employer for wrongful discharge, survival damages pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34.

 

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the

totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s

fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $2,250.00 (5.0 hours @ $450/hour) (14 hours requested) [Total Amount Requested $6,300], which sum is to be awarded in favor of defendant BASTA, Inc. and against plaintiff Dennis P. Block, individually and doing business as Dennis P. Block & Associates, payable within 30 days. CCP §§ 2031.310(e), 2023.010 (g), and 2023.030(a).  

Monetary sanctions requested in the opposition are DENIED. 

 

GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO ADHERE TO HEALTH GUIDANCE THAT DICTATES SAFETY MEASURES, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance.  Please note that LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams offers free audio and video appearance. Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear.  With respect to the wearing of face masks, Department D recognizes that currently, the Los Angeles Department of Public Health strongly recommends masks indoors, especially when interacting with individuals whose vaccination status is unknown; for individuals who have a health condition that puts them at higher risk for severe illness; individuals who live with someone who is at higher risk; and for individuals who are around children who are not yet eligible for vaccines.  In accordance with this guidance, it is strongly recommended that anyone personally appearing in Department D wear a face mask.  The Department D Judge and court staff will continue to wear face masks.  If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.