Light Wireless Communications v. Jaffe CA4/1

Filed 6/20/24 Light Wireless Communications v. Jaffe CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

LIGHT WIRELESS D081842 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Super. Ct. No. 37-2020- v. 00006157-CU-BC-CTL)

DOUGLAS JAFFE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Carolyn M. Caietti, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Douglas Jaffe and Douglas Jaffe, in pro per., for Defendant and Appellant. MBK Chapman, Jason K. Boss and William D. Chapman for Plaintiffs and Respondents. MEMORANDUM OPINION Douglas Jaffe appeals from an order awarding $10,000 in discovery sanctions to Light Wireless Communications, LLC. By memorandum opinion, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the

sanctions. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851-854.) We therefore affirm. A court may impose a monetary sanction for misuse of the discovery process, which includes failing to respond to discovery, providing evasive responses, disobeying a court order to provide discovery, or unsuccessfully opposing a discovery motion. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1285 (Clement).) If a monetary sanction is authorized, the court shall impose that sanction unless the party subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(a).) We review orders imposing sanctions for abuse of discretion. (People v. Edwards (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1259, 1266.) “[T]his standard of review is highly deferential to the trial court’s wide discretion in determining the facts, choosing from the array of available sanctions, and deciding the severity of any sanction chosen.” (People v. Landers (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 288, 304.) Due process considerations require that the sanction is suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery sought, but the court may not impose sanctions designed to punish. (Petersen v. City of Vallejo (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 757, 782.) We will reverse a sanctions order only if the trial court’s action was arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical. (Clement, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 1286.) Jaffe contends Light Wireless failed to properly meet and confer before filing its motion and the trial court ignored his opposing separate statement regarding each special interrogatory at issue. Jaffe asserts the true reason for the sanction was to punish him but provides no argument or record support for such contention. Based on our review of the record, Jaffe’s claims have no merit.