This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/14/2019 at 07:12:20 (UTC).

STEVEN JENSEN VS KRISTEN KERR ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/26/2015 STEVEN JENSEN filed an Other lawsuit against KRISTEN KERR. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are SUSAN BRYANT-DEASON, ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE, KEVIN C. BRAZILE and DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2726

  • Filing Date:

    08/26/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

SUSAN BRYANT-DEASON

ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE

KEVIN C. BRAZILE

DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB

 

Party Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Cross Defendant

JENSEN STEVEN

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

DOES 1 THROUGH 20

KERR CLARENCE

KERR KRISTEN

MEDRANO MANUEL A.

O'CONNOR KATHLEEN

PEKARCIK VICTOR

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

FREEDMAN + TAITELMAN LLP

SMITH JEREMY D.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

PECH RICHARD LAW OFFICES OF

STELLWAGEN ROBERT H. JR. ESQ.

GALLIANI FRITZIE ESQ.

DEVLIN TAD A.

CARGAIN AARON M.

GALLIANI FRITZIE

STELLWAGEN ROBERT H. JR.

Cross Plaintiff Attorney

CHAMBERLAIN HARRY W II

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorney

SMITH JEREMY D.

 

Court Documents

Separate Statement

11/1/2019: Separate Statement

Motion to Quash

11/27/2019: Motion to Quash

Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application Ex Parte application for order to continue the trial

3/1/2019: Ex Parte Application - Ex Parte Application Ex Parte application for order to continue the trial

Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT KRISTEN KERR'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT STEVEN JENSEN'S MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS WITHHELD BASED ON ALLEGED PRIVILEGE

3/19/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT KRISTEN KERR'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT STEVEN JENSEN'S MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENTS WITHHELD BASED ON ALLEGED PRIVILEGE

Declaration - DECLARATION OF AARON M. CARGAIN IN SUPPORT OF MANUEL A. MEDRANO'S MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

4/22/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF AARON M. CARGAIN IN SUPPORT OF MANUEL A. MEDRANO'S MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER CONSOLIDATING MOTIONS TO COMPEL HEARINGS AND SETTING THEM FOR MAY 15, 2019

5/2/2019: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER CONSOLIDATING MOTIONS TO COMPEL HEARINGS AND SETTING THEM FOR MAY 15, 2019

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS TO CROSS-COMPLAINTS

2/2/2018: STIPULATION AND ORDER RE EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS TO CROSS-COMPLAINTS

DEFINDANT MANUEL A. MEDRANO'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

11/2/2015: DEFINDANT MANUEL A. MEDRANO'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

ORDER GRANTING KRISTEN KERR'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE OR ADVANCE HEARING ON DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO STRIKE

1/14/2016: ORDER GRANTING KRISTEN KERR'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE OR ADVANCE HEARING ON DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO STRIKE

CIVIL DEPOSIT -

3/7/2016: CIVIL DEPOSIT -

PLAINTIFF STEVEN JENSEN'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CLARENCE KERR'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL STEVEN JENSEN'S PRODUCTION OF ELECTRONIC STORAGE DEVICES FOR INSPECTION

3/9/2016: PLAINTIFF STEVEN JENSEN'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CLARENCE KERR'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL STEVEN JENSEN'S PRODUCTION OF ELECTRONIC STORAGE DEVICES FOR INSPECTION

NOTICE OF ERRATA ON THE DECLARATION OF RICHARD PECH IN SUPPORT OF CLARENCE KERR'S MOTION TO COMPEL STEVEN JENSEN'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMANDS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ELECTRONICALLY STORED IN

3/15/2016: NOTICE OF ERRATA ON THE DECLARATION OF RICHARD PECH IN SUPPORT OF CLARENCE KERR'S MOTION TO COMPEL STEVEN JENSEN'S FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMANDS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ELECTRONICALLY STORED IN

PLAINTIFF STEVEN JENSEN'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES OF KATHLEEN O'CONNOR TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS AND FOR RECOVERY OF EX

4/13/2016: PLAINTIFF STEVEN JENSEN'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES OF KATHLEEN O'CONNOR TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS AND FOR RECOVERY OF EX

DEFENDANT KRISTEN KERR'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR STAY OF ALL DEPOSITIONS, ETC.

5/5/2016: DEFENDANT KRISTEN KERR'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR STAY OF ALL DEPOSITIONS, ETC.

KRISTEN KERR'S COMPLIANCE WITH CCP 43O.41 PRIOR TO FILING THE DEMURRER TO PETITIONER'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

5/11/2016: KRISTEN KERR'S COMPLIANCE WITH CCP 43O.41 PRIOR TO FILING THE DEMURRER TO PETITIONER'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFF STEVEN JENSEN'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT KRISTEN KERR TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

5/31/2016: PLAINTIFF STEVEN JENSEN'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT KRISTEN KERR TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (SET ONE); MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

NOTICE OF RULING RE: NON-PARTY KATHLEEN O'CONNOR'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE

6/16/2016: NOTICE OF RULING RE: NON-PARTY KATHLEEN O'CONNOR'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE

DEFENDANT MANUEL A. MEDRANO'S OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR ORDER ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A PLEADING AGAINST DEFENDANT BASED ON ATTORNEY-CLIENT CONSPIRACY

7/8/2016: DEFENDANT MANUEL A. MEDRANO'S OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR ORDER ALLOWING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A PLEADING AGAINST DEFENDANT BASED ON ATTORNEY-CLIENT CONSPIRACY

690 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/13/2020
  • Hearing10/13/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department 48 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2020
  • Hearing10/06/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 48 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/15/2020
  • Hearing07/15/2020 at 14:00 PM in Department 48 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/28/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([Notice of Continuance Due to COVID-19 State of Emergency Declarations]); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2020
  • DocketNotice of Continuance Due to COVID-19 State of Emergency Declarations; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Discovery)

    Read MoreRead Less
1,288 More Docket Entries
  • 09/11/2015
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2015
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2015
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2015
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2015
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2015
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2015
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2015
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Steven Jensen (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2015
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/26/2015
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: 1. UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO COMPUTERS, COMPUTER SYSTEMS & COMPUTER DATA IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 502(C); ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC592726    Hearing Date: December 12, 2019    Dept: 48

MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Kristen Kerr

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Steven Jensen

PROOF OF SERVICE:

ANALYSIS

Motion to Compel Deposition

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Kristen Kerr moves to compel the deposition of Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Steven Jensen.

Regardless of whether the motion is moot by virtue of the parties agreeing that the deposition of Steven Jensen is to take place between January 23-31, 2020 (Opposition, 2), the Court lacks the power to compel an out-of-state resident to attend a deposition in California. CCP § 1989. Jensen is a resident of North Carolina. Declaration of Jeremy D. Smith, ¶ 5.

CCP § 1989 has been held to apply to deposition witnesses who are named parties to the litigation:

b. Code of Civil Procedure section 1989

I-CA has declined to cite or discuss Code of Civil Procedure section 1989 in its briefs to this court. Therefore any challenge to the trial court's reliance on that section, or the court's interpretation of that section, is forfeited.

I-CA has briefly addressed the cases cited by the trial court. I-CA attempts to distinguish Amoco on the ground that the Amoco court did not discuss Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.230, upon which I-CA relied. Instead, the [*281]  case focused on the obligation of a witness to appear in court in California if he is not a resident of California at the time of service.

While Amoco did not directly discuss the application of Code of Civil Procedure section 1989 to deposition witnesses, the issue was discussed in Toyota Motor Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1107 [130 Cal. Rptr. 3d 131] (Toyota). The Toyota court held, “[Code of Civil Procedure] section 1989 applies not only to those witnesses obliged to attend as witnesses in court proceedings, but those witnesses obliged to give testimony by deposition before deposition officers.” (Id. at p. 1113.)

I-CA points out that, in a footnote, the Toyota court declined to express an opinion as to whether Code of Civil Procedure section 1989 applies to section 2025.230. Specifically, the Toyota court stated: “We express no opinion … as to whether our analysis or the conclusions we have reached in this opinion would or should extend or apply to a court order made pursuant to [Code of Civil Procedure] section 2025.230 which provides for the circumstances where ‘… the deponent named is not a natural person … .’” (Toyota, supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 1126, fn. 20.)

Aside from pointing out this footnote, I-CA has declined to make any reasoned arguments as to why Code of Civil Procedure section 1989 should not apply when the deposition has been noticed under section 2025.230, as opposed to any of the other discovery statutes.

We note that the Toyota court also made reference to Twin Lock, Inc. v. Superior Court (1959) 52 Cal.2d 754 [344 P.2d 788] (Twin Lock). In Twin Lock, the plaintiff, Twin Lock, Inc., was a resident of New York suing California defendants in a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles. The defendants gave notice that they would depose certain officers of Twin Lock in Los Angeles. Twin Lock moved to vacate the deposition notice, and the trial court denied the motion. The defendants sought imposition of sanctions based on the officers' willful failure to appear. (52 Cal.2d at pp. 757–758.) On appeal, Twin Lock sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the imposition of sanctions for its officers' failure to appear for the depositions.

The Supreme Court stated: “The disposition of this proceeding depends upon the applicability of section 1989 of the Code of Civil Procedure … .” (Twin Lock, supra, 52 Cal.2d at p. 758.) Twin Lock asserted that under Code of Civil Procedure section 1989, “no form of compulsion, including the use of sanctions against a party, may be used by the court to compel the New [*282]  York residents to come to California … .” (52 Cal.2d at p. 758.) The high court evaluated Code of Civil Procedure section 1989, noting that “[t]he word ‘witness’ in section 1989 includes a prospective witness who is a party or who is a director, officer, or managing agent of a party.” (Twin Lock, at p. 759.) The court concluded that Code of Civil Procedure section 1989 was “by its terms applicable to the New York residents[1] involved here.” (52 Cal.2d at p. 759.) The court held that the trial court was “without power to impose sanctions upon Twin Lock based upon the notice which defendants gave for the taking of the depositions in Los Angeles of the New York residents.” (Id. at pp. 761–762.)

I-CA has declined to cite or discuss Twin Lock. The case supports the trial court's determination that it had no power to compel production of Plasgad[2]'s financial records or to compel a deposition of Plasgad's nonresident PMK. Under the circumstances, I-CA has provided no grounds for reversal of the trial court's order.

I-CA Enterprises, Inc. v. Palram Americas, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 257, 280-282 (bold emphasis and underlining added).


[1] The New York residents were the plaintiffs whose depositions were sought to be taken in California.

[2] Plasgad was a defendant in the action. 235 Cal.App.4th 257, 261.

Case Number: BC592726    Hearing Date: November 13, 2019    Dept: 48

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION AND COPYING OF COMPUTERS AND ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Steven Jensen

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant/Cross-Complainant Kristen Kerr.

PROOF OF SERVICE:

ANALYSIS

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Demand for Inspection

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Steven Jensen brings a motion to compel further responses to demand for inspection and copying of Defendant/Cross-Complainant Kristen Kerr’s Computers and Electronically Stored Information, and requests sanctions.

Contrary to Kerr’s argument, the motion is not moot simply because the parties agreed to make their devices available for inspection. Jensen is still entitled to verified responses.

Timeliness

Defendant Kerr’s responses to set three were served by overnight delivery on March 8, 2019. Declaration of Jeremy Smith, Exh. B. The deadline to bring the motion to compel expired on April 25, 2019. This motion was not filed and served until August 30, 2019. However, the parties agreed that the deadline to bring motions such as this one would be two weeks after the forensic inspection takes place. See Smith Decl., ¶ 11; Exh. F (April 10, 2019 email), Page F-9. No forensic inspection has taken place yet. Smith Decl., ¶ 11.

Meet and Confer

Relative to Kerr’s responses to set three, Jensen’s counsel did not engage in sufficient meet and confer efforts as required by CCP § 2031.310(b)(2). See Smith Decl., ¶ 11; Exh. F, p. 17-19 (bold emphasis added). Jensen did not demonstrate a “reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Bold emphasis added.)

While the Court could continue the hearing the motion for further meet and confer efforts, the Court will proceed to address the merits of this motion.

¿ Demands Nos. 1 – 9 (Set Three):

On November 17, 2015, Jensen served demand for inspection and copying of computers and electronically stored information, set two upon Defendant Kristen Kerr. The demand consisted of the following single demand:

Any computer (laptop and/or desktop) other electronic storage devices, including but not limited to external hard drives, Zip drives, memory sticks, jump drives, USB/flash drive devices, CDs, DVDs, floppy disks, e-mail accounts, Blackberries, other PDAs or cell phones with text messaging or electronic mail capabilities used by KRISTEN KERR during the period between September 2011 and the filing of the complaint in this action in August 2015.

Declaration of Gemma Karapetyan, Exh. A (bold emphasis added).

Kristen Kerr served her initial response to this demand on April 11, 2016 (Karapetyan Decl., Exh. B) and her supplemental response to this demand on November 22, 2017 (Karapetyan Decl., Exh. C). Jensen did not move to compel a further response as to the November 22, 2017 supplemental response. Accordingly, Jensen has waived the right to compel a further response to any document contained in the above Demand No. 1 contained in set two. He cannot simply re-propound the request by splitting it up into subparts, and re-serving them as set three as he seeks to do.

A court does not have jurisdiction to compel further responses if they are filed after the time limit set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure. Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 788; Karz v. Karl (1982) 137 Cal App.3d 637, 645-46 (bold emphasis added); Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410 (bold emphasis added). See also Weil and Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, The Rutter Group, § 8:1491: “The 45-day time limit is mandatory and ‘jurisdictional’ (court has no authority to grant a late motion). . . .”; New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1427-28.

A party may not circumvent the time limit merely by propounding the same discovery again. Prof'l Career Colleges, Magna Inst. v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 490, 493.

As discussed above, Jensen is deemed to have waived the right to compel further responses to Demands Nos. 1 – 5 for the period September 2011 to August 2015. However, Jensen’s request for production as to Demands Nos. 1 – 5 is timely for the period September 2015 to the present. Moreover, Jensen is not deemed to have waived the right to compel further responses to Demands Nos. 6 - 9 because those were not included in the previous demand for production.

As to Demands Nos. 1 – 5, good cause exists for inspection of electronic devices pertaining to the period September 2015 to the present, to discover evidence of whether Kerr hacked into Jensen’s email and other electronic devices.

As to Demands Nos. 6 – 9, good cause exists for Jensen to discover emails and electronically stored information expressly referenced in Kristen Kerr’s cross-complaint and upon which Kerr relies to defend against Plaintiff’s allegations. To the extent these extend into the period September 2011 to August 2015 (and thus are excluded from Demands Nos. 1 -5), they must be produced if responsive to Demands Nos. 6 – 9.

Kerr’s objection on the ground of attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine are SUSTAINED to the extent that information contained on the electronic devices come within either privilege. Kerr must produce a privilege log identifying what information come within such privilege, and the parties are to agree upon a protocol for reviewing the contents for privileged documents.

Given, the Court’s ruling that only information for the period September 2015 to the present are included in the response demand, Kerr’s remaining objections are OVERRULED; they are not well-taken.

Kerr provided the following substantive response:

Without waiving these objections, and expressly reserving same, Responding Party responds as follows: Responding Party has archived the contents of electronic devices within her possession that are reasonably accessible and functional and upon agreement between the parties regarding a protocol for reviewing the contents of these devices, including review for privileged, private[1], and irrelevant documents, and upon an agreement in which Propounding Party agrees to undertake the cost for the review of any inaccessible information or information that requires an undue burden to review, Responding Party will produce any responsive, non-privileged documents that are reasonably accessible, if any exist, and relevant.

Kerr did not sufficiently identify information of a type or category of source that is not reasonably accessible. CCP § 2031.210(d):

(d) If a party objects to the discovery of electronically stored information on the grounds that it is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense and that the responding party will not search the source in the absence of an agreement with the demanding party or court order, the responding party shall identify in its response the types or categories of sources of electronically stored information that it asserts are not reasonably accessible. By objecting and identifying information of a type or category of source or sources that are not reasonably accessible, the responding party preserves any objections it may have relating to that electronically stored information.

(Bold emphasis added.)

Nor has Kerr identified data compilations which require translation into reasonably usable form through detection devices. CCP § 2031.280.

(e) If necessary, the responding party at the reasonable expense of the demanding party shall, through detection devices, translate any data compilations included in the demand into reasonably usable form.

CCP § 2031.280 (bold emphasis added).

Accordingly, Kerr does not have a right to require Jensen to agree

to undertake the cost for the review of any inaccessible information or information that requires an undue burden to review as a condition of production.

Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to Demands for Inspection (Set Three) Nos. 1 – 5 is GRANTED IN PART as to the period September 2015 to the present only. The motion to compel further responses to Demands Nos. 6 – 9 is GRANTED.

Further responses are due within 10 days. Inspection is to occur within 20 days.

Given the partial success of the motion, both parties’ requests for sanctions are DENIED.


[1] Note: Because Kerr did not object on the ground of privacy, she has waived the objection. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 272-76.