On 02/08/2017 MARY TAFERNER filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against TOMMY DE SANTIS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
DE SANTIS TOMMY
DOES 1 TO 10
FRAWLEY PATRICK ESQ.
DAVID JILL S
BROWN DAVID WAYNE TAFT
3/22/2018: Minute Order
4/17/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY
12/7/2018: Minute Order
12/21/2018: Notice of Ruling
12/21/2018: Minute Order
1/22/2019: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice
7/19/2017: Minute Order
8/22/2017: Minute Order
10/11/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
10/11/2017: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, FOR DAMAGES FOR FOR FRAUD AND TO RECOVER USURIOUS INTEREST PAYMENTS
11/13/2017: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGENENT CONFERENCE
12/11/2017: Minute Order
at 10:00 AM in Department 37; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Notice (of Case Reassignment); Filed by Mary Taferner (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Ex-Parte ProceedingsRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ((Ex-Parte Proceedings)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Declaration (in Support of Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application); Filed by Mary Taferner (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Ex Parte Application (to continue trial); Filed by Mary Taferner (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Ruling (Regarding Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial and All Motion and Discovery Dates); Filed by Mary Taferner (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Declaration (of Forensic Accountant Expert in Support of Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application); Filed by Mary Taferner (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Minute OrderRead MoreRead Less
Case Management Statement; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENTRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
OSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARINGRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR RECOVERY OF USURIOUS INTERESTRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Mary Taferner (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC650080 Hearing Date: April 30, 2021 Dept: 37
HEARING DATE: April 30, 2021
CASE NUMBER: BC650080
CASE NAME: Mary Taferner v. Tommy De Santis
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Mary Taferner
OPPOSING PARTY: Defendant Tommy De Santis
TRIAL DATE: None
PROOF OF SERVICE: OK
MOTION: Motion for Protective Order
OPPOSITION: April 20, 2021
REPLY: April 23, 2021
TENTATIVE: Plaintiff’s motion is denied. Plaintiff is to give notice.
This action arises out of loan agreements between Plaintiff, Mary Taferner (“Plaintiff”), her former husband and non-party John Taferner (“Mr. Taferner”) and Defendant, Tommy De Santis. (“Defendant”) Plaintiff alleges that between August 15, 2007 and October 20, 2010, the parties agreed for Defendant to loan Plaintiff and Mr. Taferner $64,000. Plaintiff and Mr. Taferner allegedly paid on this loan through 2015. Plaintiff contends that money given by Defendant was money to which he received usurious interest payments in violation of California law, whereas Defendant contends that this money was an investment for which he has not received repayment.
Plaintiff’s operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed October 11, 2017, alleges the following causes of action: (1) declaratory relief, (2) Fraud for intentional or negligent misrepresentation, (3) fraud for concealment, (4) fraud for promise without intent to perform, (5) damages to recover usurious interest payments.
Plaintiff now moves for a protective order as follows: “prohibiting Defendant Tommy De Santis (“Mr. De Santis” or the “Defendant”) and/or Defendant’s Attorney, Bill Cumming and/or Cumming & Associates, APLC, from requiring Plaintiff to pay for Defendant’s copies of 6-8 boxes of subpoenaed records.” Defendant opposes the motion.
Meet and Confer
A motion for a protective order under Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.060 must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060 subd. (a).) The declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented in the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.) “[A] reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with [opposing] counsel…. Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.) “A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate involves the exercise of discretion.” (Stewart v. Colonial W. Agency (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016, internal ellipses omitted.) Where a party fails to make any real effort at informal resolution, a particularly egregious failure may justify an immediate and outright denial of further discovery. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 433-34, citing Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1437.)
Plaintiff submits the declaration of her counsel, Jill S. David (“David”) in support of the instant motion. David attests that this motion pertains to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, dated February 5, 2020. (David Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) (the “RFPs”) According to David, the parties met and conferred about the RFPs as well as the cost to produce documents responsive to the RFPs. (David Decl. ¶¶ 8-16, Exhs. 3-4.) Exhibits 3-4 to the David Declaration demonstrate that the parties discussed the issues raised in this motion during their meet and confer efforts.
Thus, the David Declaration is sufficient for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.060.
“When an inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of documents, tangible things, places, or electronically stored information has been demanded, the party to whom the demand has been directed, and any other party or affected person, may promptly move for a protective order.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.060, subd. (a).) “The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other person from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.060, subd. (b.)
Requested Protective Order
Plaintiff seeks a protective order regarding documents responsive to Requests for Production, Set Two as follows: (1) that Defendant inspect the documents as requested; or (2) pay for them; or (3) obtain them directly from the source without trying to penalize Plaintiff for not providing Defendant the free copies they so desire. (Motion, 5.) Requests for Production, Set Two asks Plaintiff to “review YOUR responses to all the previously served Requests” and produce additional documents which have not been produced. (Motion, 1-2.)
According to Plaintiff, this protective order is required because the party requesting discovery is required to pay any special costs for “non-routine discovery,” such as subpoenaed records. (Id.) As such, because Defendant has alleged failed to obtain responsive documents directly from the financial institutions which would have generated them, Plaintiff requests the instant protective order governing her discovery obligations. (Id.)
In opposition, Defendant contends that the motion should be denied because Plaintiff’s requested protective order is unintelligible. (Opposition, 2-4.) According to Defendant, no protective order is necessary because Defendant did not file a Motion to Compel Further Responses pertaining to the RFPS and is within his rights to wait for the parties to exchange documents before trial. (Id.)
It is undisputed that this motion pertains to a supplemental request to produce documents, which was served on February 5, 2020. Plaintiff served responses on March 16, 2020. There was no motion to compel further responses. The response offered to make certain documents available for inspection. The code does not require a party to provide copies, although many people do. No protective order is necessary or appropriate.
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
Request for Attorney’s Fees
The court may impose sanctions against any party for engaging in conduct constituting a “misuse of the discovery process.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030 (a).) Misuse of the discovery process includes “failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010 (d).)
Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,028.85 in connection with this motion. Having denied Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also denied.
Defendant also requests $1,275 in attorney’s fees in connection with this motion on the grounds that Plaintiff should be sanctioned for filing a frivolous motion. It appears there has been a serious lack of communication between counsel, so no sanctions will be awarded.
Plaintiff’s motion is denied. Plaintiff is to give notice.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases