Akiyoshi v. Andrade CA1/5

Filed 10/11/23 Akiyoshi v. Andrade CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

LAURENCE AKIYOSHI, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A164244

v. (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. HECTOR ANDRADE, et al., SCV-268120) Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiffs Laurence Akiyoshi and Christine Akiyoshi (collectively, the Akiyoshis) appeal the trial court’s order granting monetary sanctions against them in favor of defendants and respondents Louis Andrade, Yolanda Andrade DeMaria, and Jaime Andrade (collectively, the Andrade Defendants). The court awarded $9,200 in sanctions against the Akiyoshis as part of its order denying their motion to compel further discovery responses from the Andrade Defendants. The Akiyoshis contend, among other things, that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion and imposing monetary sanctions. We disagree and affirm.

1

I. BACKGROUND The Akiyoshis sued the Andrade Defendants and defendant Hector Andrade1 (collectively, defendants) for breach of contract and fraud after they allegedly failed to repay the Akiyoshis for a loan. On July 17, 2021, the Akiyoshis propounded written discovery requests to all defendants. Defendants served their responses and objections. On August 22, 2021, the Akiyoshis sent a meet and confer letter to the Andrade Defendants regarding the purported deficiencies in their responses. The letter did not specify a date by which the Andrade Defendants were to amend their responses to avoid a motion to compel. On August 23, 2021, counsel for the Andrade Defendants responded that they would provide amended responses within 10 days and that a motion to compel was unnecessary. On August 31, 2021, the Akiyoshis filed a motion to compel discovery responses and request for monetary sanctions against all defendants. The Akiyoshis argued that the Andrade Defendants made frivolous objections and failed to produce any responsive documents. On September 3, 2021, the Andrade Defendants, as promised in their August 23 response, served amended discovery responses. On September 16, 2021, the Akiyoshis’ counsel sent a second meet and confer letter which stated that the motion to compel would remain on calendar unless the Andrade Defendants withdrew all their objections to the discovery requests. Counsel for the Andrade Defendants refused to do so as he believed the objections were valid and timely.