Filed 2/5/20 Vachata v. Lanza CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

RACHEL DANAE VACHATA,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LUCIO LANZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

H047121

(Santa Clara County

Super. Ct. No. 18CV323454)

On June 14, 2019, the trial court granted plaintiff and respondent Rachel Danae Vachata’s (“Vachata”) motion for a protective order prohibiting defendant and appellant Lucio Lanza (“Lanza”) from questioning third-party deponent Danish Nagda (“Nagda”) about various private matters relating to Vachata. The court also awarded monetary sanctions of $16,000 to Vachata against Lanza and his attorneys (Order). This appeal ensued. The parties have reached a settlement of the issues raised on appeal and jointly move for a summary reversal of the Order. We grant the motion and reverse the Order pursuant to the stipulation of the parties.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

While the action below was pending, Lanza sought to depose Nagda, about Vachata. Vachata moved for a protective order prohibiting Lanza from inquiring into certain areas she claimed were an unwarranted intrusion into her privacy. After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion. In its Order, the trial court prohibited Lanza from questioning Nagda about, “1. Plaintiff s employment at and termination from Dynamic Surgical, Inc. and/or Mallium, Inc., including the circumstances of and reasons for her termination therefrom; 2. Plaintiff’s sexual conduct with anyone other than Defendant, including Plaintiff’s alleged sexual abuse as a minor; 3. Plaintiff’s communications and interactions with close family members, including her grandparents, mother, father, siblings including any foster siblings, and cousins; and, 4. The witness’ beliefs and opinions as to Plaintiff’s credibility, and whether he believed her.” Vachata also requested sanctions in the amount of $27,343. The court reduced this amount finding it unreasonable and awarded sanctions in the amount of $16,000 against Lanza and his attorneys. On July 12, 2019, Lanza timely appealed the Order.

II. DISCUSSION
III.
On appeal Lanza contends that the trial court erred in prohibiting questions on certain issues and in awarding monetary sanctions. The parties have reached a settlement regarding all the issues addressed in the Order and now request that this court summarily reverse the Order pursuant to their stipulation. Specifically, the parties request that the Order be reversed as to the provision prohibiting Lanza from questioning Nagda about Vachata’s credibility and truthfulness, and as to the award of sanctions.

The reason that the parties seek a summary reversal, as outlined in the motion and declaration in support of the motion for reversal, is that they agree that the trial court’s order prohibiting this line of questioning and awarding sanctions was erroneous. The parties also agree that if the appeal were prosecuted to its conclusion, the Order would properly be reversed. Summary reversal of the judgment, they contend, would place the parties in the same position they would be in if the appeal were successfully prosecuted to completion, and would save both private and judicial resources because it would obviate the need for briefing by the parties and review of the record by this court.

The parties’ joint motion and declaration supports the conclusion that a summary reversal pursuant to stipulation is appropriate under the facts of this case and the law. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8).) For the reasons stated in the motion, the court finds that there is no possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal. The discovery dispute at issue here does not implicate the interests of third parties or the public. Nagda did not object to the line of questioning at issue; Vachata alone objected. Further, the trial court did not impose sanctions because of any ethical or professional lapse by Lanza or his counsel, but merely because Lanza was unsuccessful in opposing the Order. The public interest is served by a speedy resolution of this appeal from a pretrial order because it will conserve judicial resources.

This court further finds that the parties’ grounds for requesting reversal are reasonable. The parties have met and conferred and have been able to resolve several issues relating to discovery in this matter and anticipate a smoother path forward with the remainder of pre-trial discovery. They prefer to return to the trial court and proceed with discovery in this matter rather than prolonging the litigation with a pre-judgment appeal. These grounds outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the nullification of a judgment and outweigh the risk that the availability of a stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement. The parties correctly argue that the public trust in the courts is enhanced, not eroded, when parties agree to resolve their pretrial disputes without further litigation, resorting to the courts only for the resolution of the merits of a case. (See Union Bank v. Braille Inst. of Am. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1324.)

IV. DISPOSITION
V.
The June 14, 2019 order is reversed pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to vacate those portions of the Order that (a) impose a monetary sanction of $16,000 against Lanza and his attorneys and (b) prohibit Lanza from questioning deponent Nagda about Vachata’s credibility and truthfulness. Each party shall bear its own attorney fees and costs on appeal. The remittitur shall issue forthwith.

_______________________________

Greenwood, P.J.

WE CONCUR:

_______________________________________________

Bamattre-Manoukian, J.

________________________________

Grover, J.

Vachata v. Lanza

No. H047121