On 10/28/2015 EMMETT FURLA OASIS FILMS LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MORGAN CREEK PRODUCTIO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE and BARBARA A. MEIERS. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE
BARBARA A. MEIERS
EMMETT FURLA OASIS FILMS LLC
DOES 1 THROUGH 20
MORGAN CREEK PRODUCTIONS INC
MORGAN CREEK PRODUCTIONS INC.
MORGAN CREEK PRODUCTIONS INC.
HAMRICK & EVANS LLP
HAMRICK A. RAYMOND III
GLASER PATRICIA L. ESQ.
4/18/2018: NOTICE OF FEES DUE FOR CLERK'S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL
10/15/2018: Appeal - Remittitur - Appeal Dismissed
11/23/2015: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
1/20/2016: MORGAN CREEK'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY; ETC.
1/26/2016: DECLARATION OF GEORGE FURLA IN SUPPORT OF REPLY BRIEF TO MOTION TO DISQUALIFY MORGAN CREEK PRODUCTIONS, INC.'S COUNSEL
4/27/2016: DECLARATION OF A. RAYMOND HAMRICK, III IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS EMMETT FURLA OASIS FILMS, LLC, RANDALL EMMETT, AND GEORGE FURLA'S MOTION TO STAY ACTION PENDING APPEAL
4/27/2016: DECLARATION OF GEORGE FURLA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS EMMETT FURLA OASIS FILMS, LLC, RANDALL EMMETT, AND GEORGE FURLA'S MOTION TO STAY ACTION PENDING APPEAL
4/25/2017: Minute Order
9/19/2017: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY MORGAN CREEK PRODUCTIONS, INC.'S COUNSEL, ETC
9/25/2017: Proof of Service
9/25/2017: DECLARATION OF DAVID ROBINSON IN SUPPORT OF MORGAN CREEK'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISQUALIFY GLASER WELL
9/26/2017: DECLARATION OF DAVID ROBINSON IN SUPPORT OF MORGAN CREEK'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISQUALIFY GLASER WEIL
9/26/2017: AMENDED OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISQUALIFY GLASER WEIL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF CRAIG MARCUS
10/2/2017: PLAINTIFFS' EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF CRAIG H. MARCUS IN SUPPORT OF DFFENDANT MORGAN CREEK PRODUCTIONS, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISQUALIFY MORGAN CREEK PRODUCTION
10/2/2017: PLAINTIFFS' EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF DAVID ROBINSON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT MORGAN CREEK PRODUCTIONS, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO DISQUALIFY MORGAN CREEK PRODUCTIONS
10/16/2017: Minute Order
12/15/2017: Minute Order
at 08:31 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Status Conference (Re Appeal) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Status Conference Re Appeal)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ((Court Order Resetting Status Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order Resetting Status Conference) of 12/10/2018); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Substitution of Attorney; Filed by Joel Kozberg (Attorney)Read MoreRead Less
Appeal - Remittitur - Appeal Dismissed (B286823); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 48; Status Conference (Status Conference; Continued by Court) -Read MoreRead Less
Minute OrderRead MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
at 00:00 AM in Department 12; Unknown Event Type - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Emmett Furla Oasis Films, LLC (Plaintiff); Randall Emmett (Plaintiff); George Furla (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2015-11-04 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICERRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Emmett Furla Oasis Films, LLC (Plaintiff); Randall Emmett (Plaintiff); George Furla (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT; ETCRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC599301 Hearing Date: December 02, 2020 Dept: 48
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
On March 5, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff Emmett Furla Oasis Films LLC’s motions to compel further responses to form and special interrogatories and ordered Defendant Morgan Creek Productions, Inc. to provide further responses without objections and a privilege log within 20 days. The Court ordered sanctions of $3,250.00 against Plaintiff’s counsel. Defendant never provided the responses. On November 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed this motion for terminating, issue, or monetary sanctions.
Where a party fails to obey an order compelling answers to discovery, “the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2023.010, subd. (c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.) The Court may impose a terminating sanction against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d).) Misuse of the discovery process includes failure to respond to an authorized method of discovery or disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subds. (d), (g).) A terminating sanction may be imposed by an order dismissing part or all of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (d)(3).)
The court should consider the totality of the circumstances, including conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful, the determent to the propounding party, and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain discovery. (Lang v. Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.) If a lesser sanction fails to curb abuse, a greater sanction is warranted. (Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516.) However, “the unsuccessful imposition of a lesser sanction is not an absolute prerequisite to the utilization of the ultimate sanction.” (Deyo v. Killbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 787.) Terminating sanctions should not be ordered lightly, but are justified where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and there is evidence that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.)
Before any sanctions may be imposed the court must make an express finding that there has been a willful failure of the party to comply. (Fairfield v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 113, 118.) Lack of diligence may be deemed willful where the party understood its obligation, had the ability to comply, and failed to comply. (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 787; Fred Howland Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 605, 610-611.) The party who failed to comply with discovery obligations has the burden of showing that the failure was not willful. (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 788; Cornwall v. Santa Monica Dairy Co. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 250; Evid. Code, §§ 500, 605.)
In its opposition, Defendant states defense counsel is solely responsible for the failure to comply with the March 5, 2020 order. Because of the pandemic, defense counsel had to work from home but did not have the same ability to work as in the office. Then, defense counsel forgot about the order and did not remember it until Plaintiff filed this motion. Defense counsel paid the prior monetary sanctions and provided the privilege log. Defendant states that it is substituting new counsel and that new counsel will need to review the responses.
The Court cannot conclude that Defendant willfully failed to comply with the March 5 order. Therefore terminating sanctions, or evidentiary or issue sanctions that are tantamount to terminating sanctions, are not warranted. Defendant is to comply with the March 5 order by December 7, 2020. The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. The Court orders defense counsel Joel M. Kozberg to pay $2,900.00 within 15 days of the date of this order.
Moving party to give notice.
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. Parties intending to appear are STRONGLY encouraged to appear remotely.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases