In the matter of: THE RITA P. CATALANO TRUST OF 2000

Currently before the court is Respondent’s motion for attorney fees incurred in opposing Petitioners’ unsuccessful motion to compel. Petitioners have opposed the motion and Respondent has filed a reply.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Background

The Civil Discovery Act provides for mandatory sanctions when a party unsuccessfully makes a motion to compel unless the moving party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) 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.” (§ 2030.300, subd. (d).) Section 2031.310, subdivision (h) similarly provides, “Except as provided in subdivision (j), the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, 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.”

“Ordinarily, discovery motions are resolved by declaration. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1306(a) [‘Evidence received at a law and motion hearing must be by declaration or request for judicial notice without testimony or cross-examination, unless the court orders otherwise for good cause shown.’].) If the party seeking a monetary sanction meets its burden of proof, the burden shifts to the opposing party attempting to avoid a monetary sanction to show that it acted with ‘substantial justification.’ [Citations.]” (Doe v. United States Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1436.) “[T]he phrase ‘substantial justification’ has been understood to mean that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is well grounded in both law and fact.” (Id. at p. 1434.)

II. Merits of the Motion

Respondent requests $9,924.50 in sanctions against Petitioners and/or their counsel. Her counsel contends that he, another attorney, and a legal assistant spent a total of 21.5 hours working on the motion at $550, $375, and $95 per hour.

Petitioners argue that they acted with substantial justification in seeking the discovery at issue in the motion to compel because the discovery sought is relevant to the claims raised in the instant case. They rely, for the most part, on their relevance arguments and evidence provided in support of the motion to compel. However, they also assert that they received in discovery a 2024 email from Respondent to her counsel mentioning the RPC Realty Trust.

As the Court explained in its order denying the motion to compel, “[t]he discovery requests at issue can be generally separated into two main categories: (1) requests seeking information regarding RPC Realty Trust, which allegedly held the home sold by Rita, the proceeds of which were used to fund the loans to Objector and requests regarding the home itself (the Marstons Mills property) and (2) requests regarding a petition Objector filed in San Luis Obispo to appoint a successor trustee for the RPC Realty Trust and the allegations of fraudulent transfers Objector made in that petition.” (May 13, 2026 Order, p. 8:20-26.)

At the time of the motion to compel, the Court did not see the relevance of information regarding the RPC Realty Trust or the source of the funds loaned to Respondent to the outcome of the instant petition, which only raises the failure to repay the loans as the factual basis for the claims asserted therein. Petitioners argue that they assert a financial elder abuse claim in the petition, which is broader than simply the failure to repay the loans. But, the elder abuse claim is expressly predicated on the fourteen paragraphs preceding it, which discuss Respondent approaching Decedent to seek the loans at issue, promising that the loans would be secured, convincing Decedent to make the loans, but failing to pay the interest on the loans and misrepresenting that the loans were paid in full. (Petition, ¶¶ 4-11, 15 [incorporating paragraphs 1 through 14 by reference].)

The Court still does not see how either the source of the funds that were loaned to Respondent or the RPC Realty Trust are relevant based on the claims alleged in the petition. Further, as discussed in the May 13, 2026 Order, the discovery requests also sought current information regarding the RPC Realty Trust, which would not speak to the source of loan funds or the failure to repay the loans.

Nor is the Court convinced by Petitioners’ argument that they reasonably believed a prior court order would allow them to seek the discovery sought in the motion to compel. As Petitioners correctly indicate, on March 19, 2025, the Court (Hon. Duong) did indicate that “going forward, all discovery in dockets 22PR193527 and 22PR191805 will be applicable to both cases without regard to the case number listed on the notice.” (See Declaration of Nancy M. Battel in Support of Opposition to Motion for Sanctions, Ex. B.) But the Court also expressly stated that the discovery must be “relevant and admissible in the case in which it is introduced.” (Ibid.) Here, the Court has found the discovery irrelevant to the petition in the instant case. Under these circumstances, the court does not find that Petitioners acted with substantial justification.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED. Petitioners and/or their counsel are ordered to pay Respondent’s counsel $9,924.50 within 60 days of the date of the court’s final order on this matter.

The Court will prepare the final order.

- oo0oo -

5