This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/15/2019 at 09:26:35 (UTC).

GRANT ZIMMERMAN VS ALKIVIADES DAVID ET AL

Case Summary

On 09/13/2017 GRANT ZIMMERMAN filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against ALKIVIADES DAVID. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MONICA BACHNER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5552

  • Filing Date:

    09/13/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MONICA BACHNER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

ZIMMERMAN GRANT

Defendants

ANANKANDO MEDIA GROUP USA

FILMON TV

HOLOGRAM FOTV

DAVID ALKIVIADES

HOLOGRAM USA ENTERTAINMENT INC.

ETV NETWORKS INC.

HOLOGRAM USA PRODUCTIONS INC.

HOLOGRAM USA FOTV PRODUCTIONS INC.

HOLOGRAM USA INC.

FILMON MEDIA HOLDINGS INC.

ANAKANDO MEDIA HOLDINGS INC.

FOTV MEDIA NETWORKS INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

HERNANDEZ SARAH ELIA ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

GAROFALO ELLYN S.

 

Court Documents

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

6/20/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Motion to Bifurcate

6/20/2019: Motion to Bifurcate

Declaration

6/20/2019: Declaration

Separate Statement

6/20/2019: Separate Statement

Brief

6/21/2019: Brief

Separate Statement

6/24/2019: Separate Statement

Separate Statement

6/24/2019: Separate Statement

Separate Statement

6/24/2019: Separate Statement

Separate Statement

6/24/2019: Separate Statement

Separate Statement

6/24/2019: Separate Statement

Separate Statement

6/24/2019: Separate Statement

Separate Statement

6/24/2019: Separate Statement

Separate Statement

6/24/2019: Separate Statement

Separate Statement

6/24/2019: Separate Statement

Separate Statement

6/24/2019: Separate Statement

Separate Statement

6/24/2019: Separate Statement

Opposition

6/24/2019: Opposition

Opposition

6/24/2019: Opposition

191 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/09/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 71 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/23/2019
  • Hearingat 10:00 AM in Department 71 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/16/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 71 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/13/2019
  • Hearingat 09:00 AM in Department 71 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/13/2019
  • Hearingat 09:00 AM in Department 71 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Bifurcate

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/09/2019
  • DocketMotion for Terminating Sanctions; Filed by Grant Zimmerman (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/01/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 71, Monica Bachner, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (to Request for Production Set Three of Alkiviades David) - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/01/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (MOTION OF PLAINTIFF, GRANT ZIMMERMAN, TO COMPEL DEFENDANT ALK...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/30/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 71, Monica Bachner, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/29/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 71, Monica Bachner, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
285 More Docket Entries
  • 10/04/2017
  • DocketMinute Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/28/2017
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Grant Zimmerman (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/28/2017
  • DocketPEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER (CODE CIV. PROC., 170.6)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/22/2017
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/22/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/22/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/22/2017
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/13/2017
  • DocketPLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE 12900, ET SEQ.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/13/2017
  • DocketComplaint (Amended: 2018-02-15); Filed by Grant Zimmerman (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/13/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****5552    Hearing Date: June 26, 2020    Dept: 71

Plaintiff Grant Zimmerman’s unopposed motions to compel Defendants (1) Anakando Media Group USA (2) Anakando Media Holdings, Inc., (3) ETV Networks, Inc., (4) Filmon Media Holdings, Inc., (5) Filmon TV, (6) FOTV Media Networks, Inc., (7) Hologram FOTV, (8) Hologram USA Entertainment, Inc., (9) Hologram USA FOTV Productions, Inc., (10) Hologram USA, Inc., and (11) Hologram USA Productions, Inc. to comply with the Court’s discovery orders are denied.

Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions in connection with the motions are denied.

Plaintiff Grant Zimmerman (“Plaintiff”) moves for eleven orders compelling Defendants (1) Anakando Media Group USA (“AMG”) (2) Anakando Media Holdings, Inc., (3) ETV Networks, Inc., (4) Filmon Media Holdings, Inc., (5) Filmon TV, (6) FOTV Media Networks, Inc., (7) Hologram FOTV, (8) Hologram USA Entertainment, Inc., (9) Hologram USA FOTV Productions, Inc., (10) Hologram USA, Inc., and (11) Hologram USA Productions, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) to comply with the Court’s discovery orders pursuant to C.C.P ;2031.320. (Notices of Motions, pgs. 1-2.) In addition, Plaintiff requests an award of monetary sanctions against Defendants and their counsel of record Amir Kaltgrad, Ellyn Garafalo, and Venable LLP (collectively “Defendants’ Counsel”) as follows: $4,248 for the motion against AMG and $1,450 for each of the 10 remaining motions, for total request of $18,748 in monetary sanctions. (Notices of Motions, pg. 2; C.C.P. ;;2023.030(a), 2031.320(b).)

The Court notes that the motions as to each of the Defendants are identical and relate to the same requests for production. Accordingly, the Court will address the discovery motions collectively.

By way of background, on July 8, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses to requests for production (set three) against Defendants and ordered supplemental responses and production by July 26, 2019. (See Court’s 7/8/19 Ruling & Minute Order.) On September 19, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motions for terminating sanctions against Defendants but ordered Defendants to comply with the July 8, 2019 Order compelling production of documents by September 27, 2019. (See Court’s 9/19/19 Ruling & Minute Order.) On January 21, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motions for terminating sanctions against Defendants finding there was insufficient evidence to determine that Defendants had disobeyed a Court Order in light of the evidence suggesting Defendants submitted supplemental responses responding to discovery, albeit Plaintiff asserted these responses were insufficient. (See Court’s 1/21/20 Ruling & Minute Order.) The Court ruled that Defendants’ failure to provide responsive documents precludes Defendants from producing any such evidence at trial, if it does exist. (See Court’s 1/21/20 Ruling & Minute Order.)

Plaintiff moves to “compel [Defendants’] compliance” with the Court’s discovery orders pursuant to C.C.P. ;2031.320. However, C.C.P. ;2031.320 does not afford the Court authority to order a party’s compliance with a Court order. Rather, Section 2031.320 relates to a Court ordering a party to produce documents in response to discovery requests in accord with that party’s own statement of compliance. (See C.C.P. ;2031.320(a).) It appears Plaintiff argues for a “motion to compel compliance” pursuant to C.C.P. ;2031.320(c), which provides that, “if a party… fails to obey an order compelling [production in accord with that party’s statement of compliance], the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction…In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction…” (Motion, pg. 5.) Plaintiff appears to derive an order compelling compliance with a Court Order from the court’s authority to make “those orders that are just” if a party fails to obey an order compelling production.

Plaintiff seeks the Court’s relief to compel Defendants to obey the Court’s previously issued discovery orders, which ordered Defendants to: (1) produce responsive documents in accord with their statements of compliance [Nos. 137 (in part), 160, 161, 202, 153, 157, 158, 163, and 203]; and (2) produce further responses to certain remaining requests for production (some in part/with limitations). (See Court’s 7/8/19 Ruling.) As argued in his motions for terminating sanctions, Plaintiff argues in the instant motions that Defendants have either failed to produce documents, or their 9/19/19 and 9/27/20 supplemental production of documents were insufficient and non-responsive, and as such, Defendants have not complied with the Court’s discovery orders. (Motion, pgs. 6-9; Decl. of Hernandez ¶¶4, 6-11.)

Plaintiff’s motions are procedurally improper, as Plaintiff has already moved to compel compliance and further production, and the Court has ordered Defendants produce further responses, as discussed above. Plaintiff is not entitled to a renewed order.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motions for orders compelling compliance are denied. Given the Court’s ruling, Plaintiff’s motions for monetary sanctions are denied.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where FOTV MEDIA NETWORKS INC is a litigant