COMPTON COURTHOUSE COURT DATE FULL
The court clarifies its order and requires Defendant to comply in full with Plaintiff’s document request No.
Declaration of Pelayes, filed January 27, 2022, Ex. The court’s order further required no objections and required response to Request for Production of Documents #3 at issue.
However, Plaintiff’s demand at issue in Plaintiff’s motion (Request #3) specifically requested all “unedited surveillance video of the plaintiff including all photos, video, reports, assignments (any documents documenting scope of the assignment to surveil plaintiff), billing, notes, and correspondence, regarding said surveillance.” Declaration of Tristan Pelayes, filed January 19, 2022, Ex. The court acknowledges that its order specifically required production of the unredacted surveillance video at issue. Sanctions should be “appropriate to the dereliction and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party …. at 992.ĭiscovery sanctions are not to be imposed for punishment, but instead are used to encourage fair disclosure of discovery to prevent unfairness resulting from the lack of information. If a lesser sanction fails to curb misuse, “a greater sanction is warranted: continuing misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally harsher sanctions until the sanction is reached that will curb the abuse." Id. Sanctions are generally imposed incrementally starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination. The court may impose evidentiary, issue, monetary and/or contempt sanctions against the party disobeying a court order for abuse of discovery process. The court ordered no objections.ĭisobeying a court order to provide discovery constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s maintenance of objections warrants an order of contempt. The court should impose sanctions against Plaintiff for this frivolous motion. The court did not order Defendant to produce “accompanying documents.” Plaintiff has obtained all discovery with respect to the sub rosa videos. Plaintiff asks the court to impose monetary sanctions in addition to setting an order to show cause hearing.ĭefendant argues that it complied with the order to produce unredacted surveillance video with supplemental verified responses without objections. While Defendant did turn over the unedited raw footage, Defendant did not turn over the accompanying documents that had also been requested. Defendant filed a supplemental response on January 18, 2022, renewing all prior objections that the requested items were protected by attorney-client privilege. Plaintiff argues that the court issued an order on Decemgranting Plaintiff’s motion to require Defendant to provide further, verified responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set 3, without objection and to produce the unredacted and raw footage in the hands of its hired agent within 30 days. Plaintiff’s Motion filed January 27, 2022 MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING RE: CONTEMPTĪ.
Plaintiff alleges claims for (1) retaliation for whistleblowing activities and (2) retaliation for complaints about unsafe working conditions. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant retaliated against her after she reported hazardous working conditions to Human Resources. The First Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant employed Plaintiff as a police dispatcher from September 2003 to February 2, 2017, at which time Defendant placed Plaintiff on administrative leave. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT AGAINST DEFENDANT BUT CLARIFYING THE COURT’S 12/16/21 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAįOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – SOUTH CENTRAL DISTRICT Case Number: *******0133 Hearing Date: MaDept: A
0 kommentar(er)
