Cordova v. Wilson CA4/3

Filed 11/8/21 Cordova v. Wilson CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

MARK CORDOVA,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G059091

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2018-00984697)

DAVID WILSON, as Trustee, etc., OPINION

Defendant;

FRANCES DIAZ,

Objector and Appellant.

Appeal from order of the Superior Court of Orange County, David L. Belz, Judge. Affirmed. Mazur & Mazur and Janice R. Mazur for Objector and Appellant Connor, Fletcher & Hedenkamp, Matthew J. Fletcher, Douglas A. Hedenkamp, Michael Sapira; NM Law and Noelle R. Minto for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Frances Diaz appeals from discovery sanctions entered against her by the trial court upon the recommendation of a discovery referee after she failed to appear for a scheduled deposition and to produce certain documents. Appellant contends the trial court adopted the discovery referee’s recommendation without reviewing her objections. However, while the trial court’s order does not expressly indicate the trial court reviewed appellant’s objections, the material contained in the objections is substantively identical to the material contained in appellant’s opposition to plaintiff Mark Cordova’s discovery motion, which the trial court expressly stated it reviewed. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellant is an attorney who was involved with estate planning issues relating to a dispute between the beneficiaries of the Cordova Trust. That dispute resulted in a lawsuit, in which plaintiff sought to depose appellant and compel production of documents. In February 2019, plaintiff served appellant with a subpoena requiring testimony and documents. By this time, a discovery referee had been appointed in the case. The referee set appellant’s deposition for May 7, 2019. Appellant appeared, but only testified for a few hours, after which she said she was too ill to continue. The referee continued the deposition to May 28, 2019, and reminded appellant, who had produced no documents, of her obligation to comply with the document production portion of the subpoena. The referee also wrote to appellant to remind her of this obligation. For the May 28, 2019 session of the deposition, plaintiff arranged for a limousine to drive appellant to and from her mother’s home, to prevent the drive to the deposition from causing appellant anxiety and exacerbating her medical issues. On May 28, appellant brought her mother with her to the deposition and, after a few hours of testimony, again claimed she had to leave, this time to take her mother home. Appellant