MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE BY GARY PINKSTON, 5425 PAU A LAKA, LLC
inquiry of everyone who might be holding responsive documents or everyone who knows where such documents might be held.” (Maldonado v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1396.)
HOA seems to argue that a notice of PMK deposition results in only the production of a single PMK. It cites to no authority limiting the deposition to one witness. If HOA actually believed that Plaintiff was not entitled to the information sought or that the notice was improper for having multiple topics, HOA’s remedy was to move to stay or quash the deposition in accordance with C.C.P. § 2025.410(c) or move for a protective order under C.C.P. § 2025.420(a), i.e., that certain matters not be inquired into or that the scope of the deposition be limited to certain matters. (See e.g., C.C.P., § 2025.420(b)(9),(10); see Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial (TRG June 2025) Ch. 8E-3 §§ 8:529-8:531.1).)
Sanctions
The Discovery Act does not specify what sanctions may be imposed against an entity for designating someone lacking knowledge of all matters specified in the notice. However, monetary sanctions no doubt could be imposed (ordering the entity to pay the costs and fees incurred by the deposing party in taking the additional depositions) as failure to respond or making an evasive response is a “misuse of the discovery process.” (Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial (TRG June 2025) Ch. 8E-3 § 8:476, citing C.C.P., § 2023.010(d), (f).)
HOA’s undisputed failure to produce a prepared PMK on all noticed topics with documents to produce, is a misuse of discovery. Plaintiffs request that the Court impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,810.00 against HOA and/or its counsel of record, Keith L. Shoji & Associates, for the fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion, which consists of 5 hours at $350/hour plus $60 in filing fees. This appears reasonable. Sanctions to be paid by HOA within 30 days of this order becoming final.
2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME STONEBRIDGE CAPITAL MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE BY CVPS2508329 PARTNERS, LLC VS GARY PINKSTON, 5425 PAU A LAKA, PINKSTON LLC Tentative Ruling: Granted.
No opposition to transfer, only to requested attorney fees sought by moving party, Defendant Gary Pinkston and all entities owned by him; and 5425 Pau A Laka, LLC, a Hawaiian limited liability company.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) Section 395 et seq. Clerk’s Office is ordered to prepare transfer packet to send matter to Marin County, CA. Moving defendants to pay $50 transfer fee to Riverside County Clerk’s Office within 10 days of this order for transfer packet.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
No attorney fees or costs awarded. Counsel declaration is silent on fees and costs. Matter is being transferred and court will not retain jurisdiction for additional hearing as suggested by moving defendants.
Moving defendants to provide notice pursuant to CCP 1019.5.