Motion-Secondary: ARNTSEN FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LP, et al vs. GREGORY J DAVIS, et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                1   Collin J. Vierra (State Bar No. 322720)
     EIMER STAHL LLP
 2   99 Almaden Blvd., Suite 600
     San Jose, CA 95113-1605
 3   Telephone: (408) 889-1668
 4   Email: cvierra@eimerstahl.com
                                                            6/12/2023
 5   Attorney for Plaintiffs Robert Arntsen,
     Mary Lee. Arntsen Family Partnership, LP,
 6   Brian Christopher Dunn Custodianship

 7
                      SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
 8
                                      COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
 9
10    Robert Arntsen; Mary Lee; Arntsen Family      Case No. 22-CIV-01148
      Partnership, LP; and Brian Christopher Dunn    AUGUST 18, 2023
11    Custodianship;                                Date: August 4, 2023
12                                                  Time: 9:00 A.M. PST
                    Plaintiffs,                     Dept. 21
13    v.
                                                   Hon. Robert D. Foiles
14    David M. Bragg; Silicon Valley Real Ventures
      LLC; SVRV 385 Moore, LLC; SVRV 387           [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING
15    Moore, LLC; Gregory J. Davis; Paramont       PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
16    Woodside, LLC; and Paramont Capital, LLC; AND FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST
                                                   DEFENDANTS DAVID M. BRAGG AND
17                 Defendants.                     SILICON VALLEY REAL VENTURES,
                                                   LLC
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


           [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS
 1          This matter came for hearing on August 4, 2023 at 9:00 A.M. PST before the Honorable

 2   Robert D. Foiles, in Department 21 of the above-captioned Court, in response to Plaintiffs’ Motion

 3   to Compel and for Sanctions against Defendants David M. Bragg and Silicon Valley Real

 4   Ventures, LLC.

 5          This Court has broad authority to issue sanctions for “misuse of the discovery process”

 6   under, inter alia, Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010, 2023.020, 2023.030, 2023.050,

 7   2030.290, 2031.300, and 2033.280. The Court finds that Defendants David M. Bragg and Silicon

 8   Valley Real Ventures, LLC have no substantial justification for their discovery abuses and that no

 9   other circumstances exist that would make the imposition of sanctions unjust.

10          Based upon Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel and for Sanctions; the accompanying

11   Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Separate Statement, Declaration of Collin J. Vierra and

12   Exhibits thereto; all other filings in this action; the arguments of counsel; and good cause

13   appearing:

14          THE COURT HEREBY:

15          1.      GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request for terminating sanctions against Defendants David

16   M. Bragg and Silicon Valley Real Ventures, LLC. Plaintiffs shall file an application for a final

17   judgment against Defendants David M. Bragg and Silicon Valley Real Ventures, LLC within

18   fourteen (14) days of entry of this Order.

19          2.      GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions against Defendants David M.

20   Bragg and Silicon Valley Real Ventures, LLC in the amount of $__________. Defendants David

21   M. Bragg and Silicon Valley Real Ventures, LLC shall be jointly and severally liable for this

22   sanction and shall pay it to Plaintiffs within seven (7) days of entry of this Order.

23          3.      GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request to compel Defendants David M. Bragg and Silicon

24   Valley Real Ventures, LLC to respond to Plaintiffs’ outstanding requests for production in full

25   within fourteen (14) days of entry of this Order. Defendants’ counsel shall take personal

26   responsibility for collecting, reviewing, and producing all responsive documents to Plaintiffs. He

27   further shall identify and describe with reasonable particularity any responsive documents that

28
                                              2
          [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS
 1   were destroyed or which are being withheld on grounds of privilege, including by providing an

 2   adequate description of each document by which Plaintiffs’ may assess the privilege designation.

 3   Failure to comply with any part of this Order will be deemed contempt of court punishable by

 4   additional sanctions.

 5

 6          IT IS SO ORDERED.

 7

 8
     Dated: ____________                                By: ______________________
 9
                                                             Hon. Robert D. Foiles
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
                                             3
         [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL AND FOR SANCTIONS