MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs’ motion is denied. Page 3 of the Notice of Motion states that the Motion for Sanctions is brought pursuant to CCP §§ 128.5, 2023.010, 2023.020, and 2023.030. These Civil Discovery Act sections are definitional and the court may only impose sanctions under section 2023.030 “to the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title . . . .” Discovery motions thus must be authorized by specific statutes 26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 397924728055 in Department 18 within the Cal.

Civil Discovery Act, CCP § 2016.010 et seq. (See Haniff, supra, 9 Cal.App.5th at 199; see also CCP § 1010; CRC Rule 3.1110(a); People v. American Sur. Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 719, 726.) Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiffs seek to bring this motion under any provisions of the Civil Discovery Act other than §§ 2023.010-2023.030, the Motion is DENIED as defectively noticed.

The court is not persuaded that the conduct described in Plaintiffs’ moving papers is clearly violative of rules of procedure or professional conduct, much less that it warrants the harsh remedy requested. Plaintiffs have not made a showing that the present facts and circumstances are like those in City of Los Angeles, supra, cited in the Notice of Motion. In that case, defendant PWC brought numerous discovery motions to enforce its right to discover documents relevant to the litigation; and even though plaintiff City failed and refused to comply with its discovery obligations because several of the City’s attorneys had engaged in criminal acts that they wished to keep concealed, the trial court reserved on sanctions until the end of the litigation.

Ultimately, criminal charges were made against various City attorneys and officials to which at least some of those attorneys and officials pleaded guilty.

Here, Plaintiffs’ frustration with some of Ms. Hampton’s actions is understandable, but for each instance of purported misconduct, Ms. Hampton provides context or justification that merits a finding of substantial justification under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, et seq.

For instance, with respect to Ms. Hampton’s numerous objections at Plaintiff’s deposition, Ms. Hampton persuasively notes that Plaintiffs declined to enter into a stipulation preserving form objections for trial. (Hampton Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. D at 19:1-19:24.) Without such a stipulation, it was necessary for defense counsel to preserve each potentially valid objection since failure to object would amount to waiver. Plaintiffs also overstate the impact of the objections, arguing that each objection in a string of objections briefly and plainly stated should be counted separately. (See, e.g., Clancy Decl.

Exh. A at 15:15-16, 17:8-11, 20:13-15.) While the number of objections Ms. Hampton made is arguably excessive, the court is not inclined to find that it “cause[d] unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense” in light of the absence of the stipulation. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, subd. (c).)

With respect to Ms. Hampton’s objection to moving Plaintiff’s deposition to a different platform, each side has its own interpretation of events. While Plaintiff contends that Ms. Hampton’s explanation of her conduct included a misrepresentation, the court is not convinced. While her opposition papers certainly lend the impression that she took action contemporaneously, neither the MPA nor Ms. Hampton’s declaration explicitly state that Ms. Hampton immediately contacted Veritext; only that she did so after objecting to proceeding on a newly generated Teams link. Moreover, while Plaintiffs are dubious that Ms. Hampton’s actions were taken out of a concern for security, there is no clear evidence refuting her explanation.

Similarly, Ms. Hampton’s taking notice of Ms. Hampton’s non-appearance seems to be the consequence of a failure among the parties to communicate their intentions and expectations than

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 397924728055 in Department 18 a willful effort to obstruct discovery. The court is not inclined to make a finding that this action lacked substantial justification given the parties’ acknowledgment at their May 19, 2026 case management hearing before this court that there were communication lapses that needed to be addressed. (See Clancy Reply Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. 24, at 7:1-16; 12:15-14:3.)

With respect to Plaintiffs’ remaining assertions, the court notes that these took place in other cases. Neither party cites on-point authority for or against the proposition that the court can or should consider conduct in other cases. The court is not inclined to consider those alleged incidents in connection with this motion, particularly where they did not result in motion practice in those cases, but will briefly note that they also appear to be cases of failure to communicate and differing interpretations rather than cut-and-dried instances of abuse of the discovery process without substantial justification or violation of rules or norms of professional responsibility.

While the court denies this motion, it does acknowledge Plaintiffs’ legitimate concerns that the intent of Ms. Hampton’s conduct can reasonably be construed as aimed more towards needlessly delaying and obstructing the orderly conduct of depositions, and less towards zealously advocating for her client. Ms. Hampton is admonished to take greater care to communicate with Plaintiffs’ counsel and act with restraint and civility in the future so as to avoid these disputes.

ORDER For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE ORDERS

Notify the Court and all other parties no later than 4:00 pm the day before the scheduled hearing and identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps.

1. Log into eCourt Public Portal - https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select Search 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select Click to Contest this Ruling 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select Proceed.