On 05/10/2016 MARK WARD filed a Labor - Other Labor lawsuit against LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MALCOLM MACKEY. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.
Disposed - Judgment Entered
LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT
AKUDINOBI EMMANUEL C. ESQ.
AKUDINOBI & IKONTE
HURRELL CANTRALL LLP
4/6/2018: NOTICE OF RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO TAX COSTS
4/12/2018: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE AWARD OF COSTS TO THE DEFENDANTS; ETC.
8/14/2018: NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE AWARD OF COSTS TO DEFENDANTS
8/2/2016: DEFENDANTS' LODGING OF NON-CALIFORNIA AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO STRIKE
9/21/2016: Minute Order
9/22/2016: NOTICE OF ORDERS ENTERED AT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
4/21/2017: COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES' REPLY TO PLAINTIFF MARK WARD'S NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES ETC.
5/5/2017: NOTICE OF RULING ON COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, AND FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
5/11/2017: DECLARATION OF FRANK TREJO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
5/11/2017: SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
8/18/2017: DEFENDANT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF MARX WARD'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCFION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; ETC
8/30/2017: PLAINTIFF - MARK WARD'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION.
8/30/2017: DECLARATION OF EMMANUEL C. AKUDINOBI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION.
9/14/2017: Minute Order
9/19/2017: NOTICE OF COURT'S ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, REAVER BINGHAM, SHARON HARADA AND ELIZABETH GARCIA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
10/2/2017: Minute Order
11/9/2017: NOTICE OF APPEAL
at 08:30 AM in Department 55; Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration (Motion for Reconsideration; Advanced to a Previous Date) -Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 55; Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration (Motion for Reconsideration; Denied) -Read MoreRead Less
Minute OrderRead MoreRead Less
Opposition Document; Filed by Los Angeles County Probation Department (Defendant); Reaver Bingham (Defendant); Sharon Harada (Defendant) et al.Read MoreRead Less
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE AWARD OF COSTS TO DEFENDANTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; AND DECLARATION OF NEDA MOHAMMADZADEH IN SUPPORT THEREOFRead MoreRead Less
Notice; Filed by Mark Ward (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF NEW HEARING RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE AWARD OF COSTS TO DEFENDANTSRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Hearing; Filed by Mark Ward (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE AWARD OF COSTS TO DEFENDANTSRead MoreRead Less
PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE AWARD OF COSTS TO THE DEFENDANTS; ETC.Read MoreRead Less
DEFENDANTS' LODGING OF NON-CALIFORNIA AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO STRIKERead MoreRead Less
Demurrer; Filed by Los Angeles County Probation Department (Defendant); Reaver Bingham (Defendant); Sharon Harada (Defendant) et al.Read MoreRead Less
DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF GISELLE V. DHALLINRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Lodging; Filed by Los Angeles County Probation Department (Defendant); Reaver Bingham (Defendant); Sharon Harada (Defendant) et al.Read MoreRead Less
DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Mark Ward (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC619972 Hearing Date: July 23, 2021 Dept: 55
WARD v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION DEPT. BC619972
Hearing Date: 7/23/21, Dept. 55
#9: MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,060.00.
Notice: Okay (re-set per 6/11/21 minutes).
On 5/10/16, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that, as a Deputy Probation Officer, Plaintiff has been denied many promotions, based upon being an African-American, and complaining about discrimination.
The causes of action are:
1. RACE DISCRIMINATION - DENIAL OF PROMOTIONAL OPPORTUNITIES IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1981
2. RACE DISCRIMINATION - DENIAL OF TRANSFERS IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1981
3. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1981
4. RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF CA GOVT. CODE § 12940(K)
5. CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)
6. CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Moving party requests the Court to impose terminating and monetary ($3060) sanctions on defendants, on bases including the following:
· On January 29, 2021, the court ordered Bingham to submit to the second session of his deposition, and answer certain questions. But on February 12, 2021, counsel for Bingham notified Ward, that they intend to seek a writ of mandate to challenge the order.
· The defendants are yet to designate a PMQ for categories 5 & 8. They could not produce the asserted order denying the deposition as to those categories. They are also yet to produce the documents requested in connection with the PMQ deposition of January 8, 2021, regarding the qualifications for the positions from 2006 to 2015.
Opposing parties advocate denying, or staying, for reasons including the following:
· As to the Court\'s January 29, 2021 Order granting Plaintiff\'s Motion to Compel Defendant Reaver Bingham to Respond to Certain Questions Posed During his Deposition, the Court did not order any deposition date, and Defendants have filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate to the Appeals Court regarding said Order, which involves peace officer privileges and constitutional privacy rights and have requested an immediate stay, which is pending.
· As to the Court\'s Order on Plaintiff\'s Motion to Compel Depositions of the County Probation Department\'s Persons Most knowledgeable entered on July 21, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff\'s Motion to Compel depositions with respect to Categories Nos. 5 and 8 in Plaintiff\'s Deposition Notice, but defendants volunteer to allow a deposition on those categories anyway.
The motion is denied, in light of the alternative writ referenced in the 6/1/21 minutes denying the motion to compel defendant Reaver Bingham.
If a party willfully disobeys a discovery order, then courts have discretion to impose terminating, issue, evidence or monetary sanctions. E.g., CCP §§2023.010(g), 2030.290(c); R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 495.
“A trial court has broad discretion to impose discovery sanctions, but two facts are generally prerequisite to the imposition of nonmonetary sanctions….: (1) absent unusual circumstances, there must be a failure to comply with a court order, and (2) the failure must be willful.” Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1315, 1327. But see Reedy v. Bussell (2007) 148 Cal. App.4th 1272, 1291 ("willfulness is no longer a requirement for the imposition of discovery sanctions."). Ultimate discovery sanctions are justified where there is a willful discovery-order violation, a history of abuse, and evidence showing that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with discovery rules. Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516. “[A] penalty as severe as dismissal or default is not authorized where noncompliance with discovery is caused by an inability to comply rather than willfulness or bad faith.” Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal. App. 3d 701, 707. A court does not abuse its discretion in ordering ultimate sanctions against a party that has “persisted in its pattern of failure or refusal to give meaningful responses to discovery.” Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. LcL Administrators, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1106. An order imposing ultimate sanctions may be an abuse of discretion, as being excessive under the particular circumstances. E.g., Motown Record Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (1984) 155 Cal. App. 3d 482, 490 (“respondent abused its discretion in compelling full production of all the disputed documents due to the slight delay in full compliance. The sanctions imposed were excessive in that they are not reasonably calculated to achieve the purpose of effecting compliance with discovery and are punitive in nature.”); Cohen v. Sup. Ct. (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 184, 186-87.
Monetary sanctions are mandatory as to parties losing discovery matters, unless courts find substantial justification or other injustice. E.g., Foothill Properties v. Lyon/Copley Corona Assocs., L.P. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1557-58. “ ‘[S]ubstantial justification” has been understood to mean that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is well-grounded in both law and fact.” Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434.'
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases