Rogers v. Rogers CA2/8

California Court of Appeal Mar 16, 2015 No. B254021Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing monetary sanctions against the appellant for failing to appear at a noticed deposition, as the record supported the finding that the appellant's counsel failed to cooperate in scheduling and conditioned the deposition on improper requirements.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing monetary sanctions for a party's failure to appear at a noticed deposition.
Whether substantial evidence supported the trial court's factual findings regarding the discovery dispute.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed the monetary sanction, we affirm the order.”

“A trial court is authorized to impose monetary sanctions for the misuse of the discovery process, including the willful failure to appear at a deposition”

“The record amply supports the trial court’s ruling. There was no abuse of discretion.”

Filed 3/16/15 Rogers v. Rogers CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

REX ROGERS, B254021

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KP015122) v.

KATHEE ROGERS,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lesley C. Green, Judge. Affirmed.

The Ryan Law Firm and Kelly F. Ryan for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Law Offices of Doonan & Doonan and D. Scott Doonan for Defendant and Respondent.

___________________________________

Rex Rogers appeals from an order imposing $6,583 in sanctions against him for failing to appear at his noticed deposition. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(12).)1 Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed the monetary sanction, we affirm the order.

FACTS

Mack Ray Rogers2 established a trust on October 14, 1999. He died on February 10, 2012, and his wife, Kathee, became successor trustee upon his death. This appeal involves an acrimonious lawsuit3 between Rex, Mack’s son from a previous marriage, and Kathee regarding certain amendments made to Mack’s trust prior to his death. During the course of discovery, the trial court imposed a $6,583 monetary sanction against Rex for his failure to appear for a noticed deposition in his home state of Florida. The events leading up to the sanction are lengthy, involving many letters between the attorneys for the parties about the deposition as well as other discovery disputes. As a result, we only provide a summary of the relevant events below. Beginning in September 2013, Kathee’s attorney, D. Scott Doonan, attempted to meet and confer with Rex’s attorney, Noah Green, to set a date for Rex’s deposition.

Rogers v. Rogers CA2/8

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

REX ROGERS, B254021

KATHEE ROGERS,

FACTS

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

FLIER, J.

GRIMES, J.

AI Brief