Norris v. Chavez-Nambo

inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

Here, on April 29, 2026, Defendant served its Notice of Deposition of Norma Lara (“NOD”), noticing the remote deposition for May 18, 2026. (Decl. of Konrad¶4.) On May 11, 2026, Plaintiff Norma Lara electronically served objections to the NOD, indicating that Plaintiff Norma Lara will not appear for the deposition due to unavailability and to meet and confer with counsel to schedule the deposition on a mutually agreeable date. (Id¶5.) On May 28, 2026, Attorney Konrad sent meet and confer correspondence via e-mail to Plaintiff’s counsel, requesting Plaintiff provide availability by June 4, 2026 for the deposition to go forward on or before June 26, 2026. (Id.¶6). On June 4, 2026, around 6:30 p.m., Plaintiff’s counsel advised that Plaintiffs were available for deposition on July 31, 2026. (Id¶8.) At that time, the discovery cut off was August 8, 2026. This motion was filed 6/9/2026.

Here, Plaintiff has the burden to establish that her objection to the Deposition notice has merit.

Plaintiff has not sustained that burden, nor has she established how offering one date, two months after the original deposition date, and 9 days before the discovery cut off date, was a reasonable compromise.

In the reply, Defendant indicates there has been a trial continuance so the depositions of Plaintiff Norma Lara and Plaintiff Manuel Lara have been noticed for September 17, 2026, on a date mutually agreed upon by counsel. (Supp. Konrad Decl., ¶¶ 4-6; Exs. A-B.) However, Defendant does not consider the motion moot as it has no assurance that Plaintiff will appear on September 17, 2026 absent an order of this Court.

Based on applicable law and the facts herein, the Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff Norma Lara is ordered to appear at her deposition on the date agreed to by the parties- September 17, 2026.

No sanctions were requested.

Defendant to give notice.

5. 30-2023-01361390 1. Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Norris vs. Chavez-Nambo Defendant Diana Angelica Chavez-Nambo (“Defendant”) moves for an order imposing terminating sanctions against plaintiff Diona Shunte Norris (“Plaintiff”) and dismissing this action with prejudice.

The Court may impose a monetary, issue, evidence, or terminating sanction against any party engaging in misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.) “The discovery statutes evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination. ‘Discovery sanctions “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.”’ [Citation.] If a lesser sanction fails to curb misuse, a greater sanction is warranted: continuing misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally harsher sanctions until the sanction is reached that will curb the abuse. ‘A decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is

willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.’ [Citation.]” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.)

On October 30, 2025, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Special Interrogatories, ordering Plaintiff to provide responses within 30 days and pay $500.00 in sanctions within 30 days as well. On January 15, 2026, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel responses to Request for Production of Documents and ordered Plaintiff to pay an additional $500.00 in sanctions. Defendant’s motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories was granted on January 22, 2026 with an additional $350.00 in sanctions imposed. To date, Plaintiff has not complied with these numerous court orders, nor has Plaintiff filed an opposition to this motion. Plaintiff has disobeyed the Court’s orders without substantial justification.

Plaintiff is to appear, remotely or in person, if they wish to present any justification for why the ultimate sanction of termination is not warranted.

6. 30-2024-01371125 1. Case Management Conference 2. Motion to Compel Production Bicknell vs. Hill 3. Motion to Compel Production Commercial Investments, Inc Defendant Hill Commercial Investments, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves for an order: (1) compelling Plaintiffs Darwin Bicknell and Lissa Bareno (“Plaintiffs”) to serve initial responses to Defendant’s second set of Requests for Production of Documents; and (2) imposing monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel, Steven Tamer.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 states that if a party to whom a demand for inspection “fails to serve a timely response to it,” the party waives any and all objections and the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses to the interrogatory or demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(a)-(b).) This section also states that “the court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion . . . 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(c).)

Defendant electronically served the written discovery on Plaintiffs on December 15, 2025. (Declarations of Khoa D. Nguyen, ¶ 3.) As of the January 20, 2026 filing of the motions, Plaintiffs had not served any responses. (Id., ¶ 5.)

In light of the above, Defendant’s unopposed Motions are GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to serve verified responses, without objections, within 15 days.

The Court finds no substantial justification for Plaintiffs’ failure to serve responses. Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendant monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel, Steven Tamer, in the reduced amount of $800 (2 hrs at $400/hr), to be paid within 30 days to Defendant’s counsel.

Defendant to give notice.