Gregory Hannley v. Howard Mann

do not claim title to the property in either proceeding. There are other procedures available to Plaintiffs to ensure that issues better addressed in the civil action are not improperly addressed in the UD proceedings that do not destroy Grozdich's right to a prompt resolution of his UD action.

Plaintiffs also raise issues posed by the civil discovery protective order and stays on discovery in the civil action. These issues would only be exacerbated if the actions were consolidated. As it stands, discovery in the separate actions are separate matters.

Plaintiffs also ask the Court to order "coordinated case management," but do not explain what that means in practice. The parties should meet and confer to discuss and resolve such issues. If necessary, they can then move the Court for specific orders to resolve discovery disputes.

Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.

Gregory Hannley v. Howard Mann, Case No. 23SMCV01268 Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective Order for Third Party Witness Namsis Loch Hearing Date: September 1, 2026

Background

On March 23, 2023, Plaintiffs Gregory Hannley, Rick Darnell, Alex Draghici, Vivera Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Farah Barghi, Mali Saatchi, and Paul Edalat sued Defendants Howard Mann; Bruce E. Cahill; Robert C. Blaine; Federico Cabo; Blaine Laboratories, Inc.; Alternate Health Corp.; Alternate Health USA Inc.; Michael Murphy; Satish Dass; and Does 1-20 for (1) elder abuse; (2) defamation; (3) slander; (4) libel; (5) unfair competition; (6) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8) civil extortion; (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (10) civil extortion.

After three amendments, the operative third amended complaint claims same ten causes of action against the same defendants, except Frederic Cabo. On March 26, 2024, The Court dismissed Cabo from this case and entered judgment in his favor. On November 25, 2024, Plaintiffs dismissed Defendant Michael Murphy.

On January 27, 2026, the Court held another IDC regarding Plaintiffs' allegedly deficient production of documents, and alleged spoliation. Cahill asserted that Plaintiffs failed to respond to his form and special interrogatories. At the IDC, Plaintiff accused the Blaine Defendants of witness tampering. The Court ordered Plaintiff to produce all responsive documents and respond to Cahill's Form and Special interrogatories.

The Court set an evidentiary hearing regarding Plaintiffs' allegations of witness tampering for May 22, 2026. After several continuances, evidentiary hearing was held on August 7, 2026. The Court found that the Plaintiffs' allegations of witness tampering were not credible.

On June 2, 2026, the Court appointed a discovery referee for all purposes due to Plaintiffs' misconduct during depositions.

On May 18, 2026, Plaintiffs moved for a protective order preventing third party Namsis Loch's deposition. On July 6, 2026, the Blaine Defendants filed opposition. On July 13, 2026, Plaintiffs replied.

Arguments

Prior to the August 7, 2026, evidentiary hearing, the parties represented that the Court's decision on this protective order depended on the outcome of the hearing, so the motion was continued alongside the hearing. However, after the hearing the Blaine Defendants argued that the motion was not moot. The Court set this motion for hearing on September 1, 2026.

The basis for Plaintiffs' protective order are anonymous threatening texts that Namsis Loch received on October 2, 2023, before an arbitration in a different case. (Motion for Protective Order, pp. 0-2.) Plaintiffs argue that Blaine's threats are good cause to prevent Namsis Loch's deposition.

In opposition, the Blaine Defendants argue that Namsis Loch is Mr. Edalat's long-time assistant who handled Viviera Pharmaceuticals' financial and operational documents. Therefore, the Blaine Defendants argue that her deposition is likely to produce admissible material and that she is in possession of relevant evidence. (Opposition, pp. 8-9.) The Blaine defendants argue that the plaintiffs do not establish good cause to block Namsis Loch's deposition and request sanctions of $3,900 for opposing a frivolous motion. (Id. at 10-14.)

In reply, Plaintiffs argue that there is sufficient evidence of harassment to show good cause for a protective order. (Reply, p. 2.) Plaintiffs also argue that they have withdrawn Namsis Loch as a trial witness and that Blaine had an opportunity to cross-examine Loch in a deposition in the prior case. (Id. at p. 3.) Plaintiffs then argue that in Blaine's deposition he admitted to settling with another woman who claimed that Blaine sexually harassed her in a similar manner to the way in which Namsis Loch claims he treated her. (Id. at p. 4.)

Governing Law- Motion for a Protective Order

Management of discovery generally lies within the sound discretion of the trial court." (Lickter v. Lickter (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 712, 740.) "Judges [have] broad discretion in controlling the course of discovery and in making the various decisions necessitated by discovery proceedings." (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.) Thus, the discovery statutes "vest a wide discretion in the trial court in granting or denying discovery." (Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 175.)

The Court "shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The court may make this determination pursuant to a motion for protective order by a party or other affected person. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040." (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2017.020.)

Sanctions against an unsuccessful moving or opposing party are mandatory unless the party acted with substantial justification or there are other circumstances that make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2017.020(b); Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2031.060(h-i).)

Discussion

There is no reason Namsis Loch should not be deposed. Plaintiffs do not dispute that Namsis Loch has relevant information or documents, they contend there is good cause for a protective order because Blaine harassed her in 2023 and because she is not a trial witness in this case.

First, Blaine himself has stated that he will not be present at Namsis Loch's deposition. (Blaine Decl., P. 7.) Second, misbehavior at depositions is exactly why the Court appointed a discovery referee in this case. The referee will be present at Ms. Loch's deposition and will intervene if there is any concerning behavior. Because the Discovery Referee will mitigate any threat the Blaine Defendants pose, there is no basis for maintaining this motion after the appointment of the discovery referee.

Sanctions against the unsuccessful party on a motion for a protective order are mandatory. The Blaine Defendants request $3,900 in sanctions for six hours of their attorneys' work on this motion at $650 per hour. (Yost Decl. ISO Opposition, P.P. 55-56.) $650 per hour is a reasonable rate for an attorney of Mr. Yost's experience in the Los Angeles Area. (See Yost Decl., P. 56.) Six hours of work on this motion, which has been discussed at several hearings and continued for two months, is appropriate.

Conclusion

Plaintiffs' Motion for a Protective Order is DENIED. The Blaine Defendants are awarded $3,900 in sanctions, payable within ten (10) days.

Case Number: 26SMCV03396 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: P Tentative Ruling Fawzy Mansour v. Crisis24 Protective Solutions, Case No. 26SMCV03396 Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration Hearing Date: September 1, 2026

Background

Plaintiff Fawzy Mansour ("Mansour") sued Defendant Crisis24 Protective Solutions, Inc. ("Crisis24") for wrongful termination and five violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA") for disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure to provide reasonable accommodations. Mansour alleges that Crisis24 hired him as a Protection Operation Agent and that he began work on March 29, 2026.