2011-00107430-CU-FR

Christina J Gonzalez vs. Todd William Johnson

Nature of Proceeding:    Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Entry of a Default Judgment

Filed By:  Gonzalez, Christina J.

Plaintiff Christina Gonzalez’ Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Entry of a Default
Judgment and monetary sanctions against defendant Nancy Reed is denied.

Christina Gonzalez has sued attorney Nancy Reed for alleged wrongful acts or
omissions arising out of Nancy Reed’s representation of the Administrator of
Christina’s mother’s probate estate

On June 18, 2014, Judge Brown granted defendant Reed’s motion for summary
adjudication of the causes of action for negligence, constructive fraud, conversion, for
breach of fiduciary, civil conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  The
court denied summary adjudication of the cause of action for fraudulent concealment,
and consequently, the motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff seeks terminating or alternatively evidentiary sanctions, contending that
defendant has been evasive in discovery responses.  However, plaintiff’s motion is
silent as to any particular discovery served on Reed, responses provided by Reed, or
any court orders in CCMS relating to such discovery.

The entry of terminating sanctions or evidentiary sanctions is provided in the Discovery
Act when a party has violated a court order concerning discovery.  See CCP 2030.290
(c), 2031.2031.300(c).

Plaintiff has no grounds to seek relief under the discovery statutes.  Rather, plaintiff
contends that such sanctions are warranted because of alleged falsehoods made in             Nancy Reeds Motion for Summary Judgment.  Plaintiff has not cited any authority for
seeking a terminating or evidentiary sanction for alleged falsehoods made in a motion
for summary judgment.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted in the reasonable amount of $950.
Plaintiff is ordered to pay monetary sanctions of $950 to Nancy Reed on or before July
27, 2014.

The minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.

Item  2     2011-00107430-CU-FR

Christina J Gonzalez vs. Todd William Johnson

Nature of Proceeding:   Motion for Terminating Sanctions or in the Alternative Evidentiary

Filed By:  Gonzalez, Christina J.

Plaintiff Christina J. Gonzalez Motion for Terminating Sanctions, or in the Alternative
Evidentiary Sanctions against defendant Brecek & Young Advisors, Inc., and Michael
A. Reed is denied.

Plaintiff contends that defendants have not complied with three 2013 discovery orders.
(See Minute Orders Department 53, dated March 5, 2013, April 5, 2013, and April 26,
2013.) In opposition, defendants state that they provided verified supplemental
responses to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for
documents on May 10, 2013.  On October 1, 2013, defendants served further verified
responses to the document requests and specifically identified the documents that
were responsive to each request at issue by bate stamp number.  (Declaration of
Elizabeth Del Cid).  Defendants state that they have responded fully to plaintiff’s
discovery requests in conformity with the Court’s order.

The Court denies the request for terminating sanctions.  Defendants have provided
some responses to the discovery, therefore a terminating sanction is not warranted on
the ground it would be overly harsh and punitive.  Moreover, plaintiff has not met her
burden to show that the court order has been violated.  California courts have held that
“‘The sanctions the court may impose are such as are suitable and necessary to
enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks but
the court may not impose sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects
of the discovery but to impose punishment. [Citations.]” ( Petersen v. City of Vallejo
(1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 757, 782). In any event, a terminating sanction is not proper
unless a party is being deprived of the ability to prosecute or defend the action.
Plaintiff has not made such a showing.   The discovery sanction cannot put the
propounding party in a better position than they would have been in if they had
received the discovery.  Puritan Insurance Co. v Superior Court (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d
877, 884.

No evidentiary sanctions may be sought absent a separate statement required by
California Rule of Court, rule 3. 1345(7).

Plaintiff is not entitled to monetary sanctions because the requested relief has been
denied.