Marriage of Liu CA4/3

Filed 8/27/25 Marriage of Liu CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re the Marriage of JAYVEE and JONATHAN LIU.

JAYVEE LIU, G064181

Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22D000439)

v. OPINION

JONATHAN LIU,

Appellant.

Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Nancy J. Kasch, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed. Jonathan Liu, in pro. per., for Appellant. Law Offices of Lisa R. McCall, Lisa R. McCall and Erica M. Barbero for Respondent.

Appellant Jonathan Liu challenges two rulings: (1) an order denying his motion for a discovery protective order; and (2) an order imposing $10,000 in discovery sanctions against him. We conclude judicial estoppel did not require the court to issue a protective order closing discovery. We further conclude he has not shown the court abused its discretion by imposing sanctions. We affirm. FACTS In 2022, Jayvee Liu petitioned for a dissolution of her marriage to 1 Jonathan. After settlement negotiations broke down the following year, Jayvee’s counsel advised Jonathan that she prepared an at-issue memorandum requesting a trial date. Counsel sent the draft form to Jonathan for his review. A box was checked next to preprinted statements: “I represent to the court that: 1) this case is at issue; an answer or other legal response was filed on: [date inserted] [¶] 2) all discovery has been completed.” Jonathan denied discovery had been completed. He responded to counsel: “Your memo misrepresents that the parties have completed discovery when no we have not engaged in any formal discovery.” He also propounded an initial set of formal discovery requests to Jayvee. She responded and served her own requests on Jonathan—form interrogatories and demands to inspect documents and things. Her counsel also filed the at- issue memorandum with the box still checked. Six weeks after that filing, Jonathan moved for a protective order regarding Jayvee’s discovery requests. Jonathan asserted that the mistatement in the at-issue memorandum judicially estopped Jayvee from propounding discovery.