Preview
1 BRIAN L. WILLIAMS, State Bar No. 227948
BWilliams@GGTrialLaw.com
2 DANIEL S. CHA, State Bar No. 260256
DCha@GGTrialLaw.com
3 EMILY N. MALLOCH, State Bar No. 329264
EMalloch@GGTrialLaw.com
4 GREENBERG GROSS LLP
650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1700
5 Costa Mesa, California 92626
Telephone: (949) 383-2800
6 Facsimile: (949) 383-2801
7 MICHAEL RECK, State Bar No. 209895
MReck@AndersonAdvocates.com
8 JEFF ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES
12011 San Vicente Boulevard, #700
9 Los Angeles, California, 90049
Telephone: (310) 357-2425
10 Facsimile: (651) 297-6543
11 Attorneys for Plaintiff MONIQUE MARTINEZ
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 COUNTY OF MONTEREY
14 MONIQUE MARTINEZ, Case No. 22CV000554
15 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION
AND MOTION TO COMPEL
16 v. DEFENDANT IAN DAW’S DEPOSITION;
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS OF $500
17 GONZALES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
a public entity; IAN JAMES DAW, an [Declaration of Emily N. Malloch, and
18 individual; and DOES 3-20, [Proposed] Order]
19 Defendants. Assigned for All Purposes to:
Hon. Thomas W. Wills, Dept. 15
20
Date: May 3, 2024
21 Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept.: 15
22
Action Filed: February 28, 2022
23 Trial Date: April 29, 2024
24
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD:
25
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 3, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter may be
26
heard in Department 15 of the Monterey County Superior Court, located at 1200 Aguajito Road,
27
Monterey, CA 93940, Plaintiff MONIQUE MARTINEZ (“Plaintiff”) will move the Court for:
28
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT IAN DAW’S DEPOSITION
1 1. An Order, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450, compelling
2 Defendant IAN JAMES DAW’s (“Daw”) attendance and testimony at deposition, within twenty
3 (20) days of this hearing.
4 2. An Order, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010, and § 2025.450,
5 granting monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Daw, in the amount of
6 $500.00 to be paid within twenty (20) days of this hearing.
7 This Motion is based upon this Notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and
8 Authorities, the Declaration of Emily N. Malloch, the exhibits attached hereto, the files and
9 pleadings on this matter, and upon such further oral and/or documentary evidence which may be
10 presented at the hearing of the instant motion.
11
12 DATED: March 21, 2024 GREENBERG GROSS LLP
13
14
By:
15 Brian L. Williams
Daniel S. Cha
16 Emily N. Malloch
Attorneys for Plaintiff MONIQUE MARTINEZ
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT IAN DAW’S DEPOSITION
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
3 Plaintiff Monique Martinez (“Martinez” or “Plaintiff”) is a victim of sexual assault, abuse,
4 and harassment, which she suffered at the hands of Defendant Ian James Daw (“Daw”). Daw used
5 his role and authority as Martinez’s teacher to gain access to and to sexually assault Martinez
6 while she was a minor student of Daw’s and of the Defendant Gonzales Unified School District
7 (“GUSD”). The claims against the District sound in negligence and negligent supervision and
8 retention of Daw, who was employed as a long-term substitute high school teacher at Gonzales
9 High. And Plaintiff has likewise brought claims of sexual harassment and sexual battery against
10 Daw. During the fall of 2008, Martinez was a 16-year old student at Gonzales High and assigned
11 to Daw’s algebra class. After a permanent teacher returned later that semester, the District
12 reassigned Daw to various classes. Early on that fall semester, Daw used his authority as
13 Martinez’s teacher to begin sexually grooming Martinez during instructional periods, during break
14 periods, and after school. Daw escalated his sexual abuse of Martinez by engaging her through
15 phone messages, and eventually took Martinez to his house where he sexually assaulted and raped
16 her. A few days later, Martinez’s friend’s mother reported the rape to authorities. The principal
17 and law enforcement then interviewed Martinez. Regrettably, the District callously informed
18 Martinez that she would not be permitted to return to Gonzales High and would need to transfer to
19 a different school in the midst of the semester. Subsequently, Daw faced arrest for his abuse of
20 Martinez.
21 II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
22 Martinez initiated this action by filing her Complaint on February 28, 2022. (Declaration
23 of Emily N. Malloch, filed concurrently herewith, [the “Malloch Decl.”] at ¶ 2.) Daw was
24 formally served with the legal documents on July 5, 2022, and subsequently submitted his Answer
25 to the Complaint on July 25, 2022. (Id.)
26 On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff served Daw with Notice of Deposition, setting his
27 deposition for February 9, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. (Malloch Decl. at ¶ 3). A few weeks later, counsel
28 for Defendant Daw served his Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, citing the fact that Defendant
-3-
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT IAN DAW’S DEPOSITION
1 Daw had become unresponsive to his counsel. (Id. at 4). Despite this, neither Defendant Daw nor
2 his attorney served any objection to Plaintiff’s Deposition Notice. (Id.)
3 On February 7, 2024, the Zoom link for Daw’s deposition was provided to all counsel, and
4 still Defendant Daw did not provide any notice regarding his intent not to appear at deposition.
5 (Malloch Decl. at ¶ 5). On February 9, 2024, Defendant Daw did not appear for his deposition and
6 neither did his counsel of record. Plaintiff met and conferred with Daw’s counsel, who indicated
7 that he did not have the authority to provide new dates for Daw’s deposition, as Daw had become
8 completely unresponsive. (Id. at ¶ 6). Plaintiff proceeded with taking a certificate of
9 nonappearance. (Id.) To date, new dates have not been provided for Daw’s deposition. (Id. at ¶ 7).
10 III. PLAINTIFF MAY MOVE FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DAW’S
11 ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION
12 California Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450(a) provides that:
13 “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an
officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a
14 person designated by an organization that is a party under Section
2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section
15
2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to
16 produce for inspection any document or tangible thing described in
the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an
17 order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the
production for inspection of any document or tangible thing
18 described in the deposition notice.”
19
Where good cause exists for the requested deposition, the court should grant the motion to
20
compel the deponent's attendance at the deposition and his production of requested documents
21
(See Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.450(b)(1)). As noted above, good cause exists here as
22
Defendant Daw is a party to this action and has personal knowledge of facts and evidence that are
23
material to Plaintiff’s ability to prove her claims. Further, as evidence that Defendant Daw had no
24
justification for his failures to appear, Daw’s counsel never served Plaintiff with any objections to
25
the deposition notice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.410.
26
On the basis of these facts, and Plaintiff’s compliance with the meet and confer
27
requirements of Code of Civil Procedure §2025.450(b)(2), the court should grant Plaintiff’s
28
motion to compel Defendant Daw to attend his depositions and to produce the requested
-4-
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT IAN DAW’S DEPOSITION
1 documents.
2 IV. SANCTIONS SHOULD BE GRANTED
3 California Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450(g)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that if a
4 motion to compel deposition attendance and testimony under Section 2025.450(a) is granted, “the
5 court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in
6 favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the
7 deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial
8 justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Substantial
9 justification “means a justification that is clearly reasonable because it is well-grounded in both law
10 and fact.” (Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434; Parker v. Wolters Kluwer
11 United States, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 285, 292 (finding there was no “substantial justification”
12 where responding party did not deny his failure to meet and confer with the party propounding
13 discovery); Diepenbrock v. Brown (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 743, 749 (finding “substantial
14 justification” where the legal standards governing discovery were not clearly established); Ghanooni
15 v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 260 (finding fear of exposure was not “substantial
16 justification” for refusing to participate in a physical examination).)
17 Sanctions are also appropriate against anyone who engages in conduct that constitutes a
18 misuse of the discovery process, including the failure to respond to an authorized method of
19 discovery. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.030, § 2023.010(d).) The Court shall impose a monetary
20 sanction, ordering that the one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney
21 advising that conduct, or both, pay the reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred by
22 anyone as a result of that conduct, unless the Court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted
23 with substantial justification or that other circumstances exist that make the imposition of the sanction
24 unjust. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.030(a).)
25 Counsel for Defendant Daw has failed to provide any—let alone substantial—justification
26 for Defendant Daw’s failure to appear for deposition pursuant to the February 9, 2024, deposition
27 notice. Defendant Daw did not offer any good faith objection to the deposition notice, and has not
28 given any indication that Defendant Daw will be produced for deposition. Indeed, counsel for
-5-
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT IAN DAW’S DEPOSITION
1 Defendant Daw has indicated that he has stopped responding to his own counsel. Thus, there can
2 be no legitimate and substantial justification for Daw’s wholesale refusal to sit for his deposition.
3 Based on this complete disregard of his obligations in discovery, Plaintiff requests a reasonable
4 monetary sanction against Daw in the amount of $500.00.
5 V. CONCLUSION
6 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Monique Martinez respectfully requests that this Court
7 grant this Motion in its entirety and issue an order compelling Defendant Ian Daw to attend his
8 deposition within 20 days of the Court’s Order on this Motion, and awarding monetary sanctions
9 against Defendant Daw in the amount of $500.00.
10
11 DATED: March 21, 2024 GREENBERG GROSS LLP
12
13
By:
14 Brian L. Williams
Daniel S. Cha
15 Emily N. Malloch
Attorneys for Plaintiff MONIQUE MARTINEZ
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT IAN DAW’S DEPOSITION
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 Martinez v. Gonzales Unified School District
Case No. 22CV00054
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
4
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am
5 employed in the County of Orange, State of California. My business address is 650 Town Center
Drive, Suite 1700, Costa Mesa, CA 92626.
6
On March 21, 2024, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as
7 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT IAN
DAW’S DEPOSITION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS OF $500 on the interested parties in
8 this action as follows:
9 Mark E. Davis John F. Klopfenstein
Eric J. Bengtson Law Office Of John F. Klopfenstein
10 Davis, Bengtson & Young, APLC 9 West Gabilan Street, Suite 6
1960 The Alameda, Suite 210 Salinas, CA 93901
11 San Jose, CA 95126 Tel: 831.751.3947 / Fax: 831.751.3982
Tel: 669.245.4200 / Fax: 408.985.1814 john.klopfenstein@yahoo.com
12 mdavis@dby-law.com
eric@dby-law.com Attorney for Defendant Ian James Daw
13 jheaton@dby-law.com (Legal Assistant)
14 Attorneys for Defendant, Gonzales Unified School
District
15
BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the
16 document(s) to be sent from e-mail address AMaciel@GGTrialLaw.com to the persons at the e-
mail addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the
17 transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
19
Executed on March 21, 2024, at Costa Mesa, California.
20
21
/s/ Adam Maciel
22 Adam Maciel
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7-
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT IAN DAW’S DEPOSITION
Preview
1 BRIAN L. WILLIAMS, State Bar No. 227948 BWilliams@GGTrialLaw.com 2 DANIEL S. CHA, State Bar No. 260256 DCha@GGTrialLaw.com 3 EMILY N. MALLOCH, State Bar No. 329264 EMalloch@GGTrialLaw.com 4 GREENBERG GROSS LLP 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1700 5 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Telephone: (949) 383-2800 6 Facsimile: (949) 383-2801 7 MICHAEL RECK, State Bar No. 209895 MReck@AndersonAdvocates.com 8 JEFF ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES 12011 San Vicente Boulevard, #700 9 Los Angeles, California, 90049 Telephone: (310) 357-2425 10 Facsimile: (651) 297-6543 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff MONIQUE MARTINEZ 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 COUNTY OF MONTEREY 14 MONIQUE MARTINEZ, Case No. 22CV000554 15 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL 16 v. DEFENDANT IAN DAW’S DEPOSITION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS OF $500 17 GONZALES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a public entity; IAN JAMES DAW, an [Declaration of Emily N. Malloch, and 18 individual; and DOES 3-20, [Proposed] Order] 19 Defendants. Assigned for All Purposes to: Hon. Thomas W. Wills, Dept. 15 20 Date: May 3, 2024 21 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept.: 15 22 Action Filed: February 28, 2022 23 Trial Date: April 29, 2024 24 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD: 25 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 3, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter may be 26 heard in Department 15 of the Monterey County Superior Court, located at 1200 Aguajito Road, 27 Monterey, CA 93940, Plaintiff MONIQUE MARTINEZ (“Plaintiff”) will move the Court for: 28 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT IAN DAW’S DEPOSITION 1 1. An Order, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450, compelling 2 Defendant IAN JAMES DAW’s (“Daw”) attendance and testimony at deposition, within twenty 3 (20) days of this hearing. 4 2. An Order, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010, and § 2025.450, 5 granting monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Daw, in the amount of 6 $500.00 to be paid within twenty (20) days of this hearing. 7 This Motion is based upon this Notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and 8 Authorities, the Declaration of Emily N. Malloch, the exhibits attached hereto, the files and 9 pleadings on this matter, and upon such further oral and/or documentary evidence which may be 10 presented at the hearing of the instant motion. 11 12 DATED: March 21, 2024 GREENBERG GROSS LLP 13 14 By: 15 Brian L. Williams Daniel S. Cha 16 Emily N. Malloch Attorneys for Plaintiff MONIQUE MARTINEZ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT IAN DAW’S DEPOSITION 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS 3 Plaintiff Monique Martinez (“Martinez” or “Plaintiff”) is a victim of sexual assault, abuse, 4 and harassment, which she suffered at the hands of Defendant Ian James Daw (“Daw”). Daw used 5 his role and authority as Martinez’s teacher to gain access to and to sexually assault Martinez 6 while she was a minor student of Daw’s and of the Defendant Gonzales Unified School District 7 (“GUSD”). The claims against the District sound in negligence and negligent supervision and 8 retention of Daw, who was employed as a long-term substitute high school teacher at Gonzales 9 High. And Plaintiff has likewise brought claims of sexual harassment and sexual battery against 10 Daw. During the fall of 2008, Martinez was a 16-year old student at Gonzales High and assigned 11 to Daw’s algebra class. After a permanent teacher returned later that semester, the District 12 reassigned Daw to various classes. Early on that fall semester, Daw used his authority as 13 Martinez’s teacher to begin sexually grooming Martinez during instructional periods, during break 14 periods, and after school. Daw escalated his sexual abuse of Martinez by engaging her through 15 phone messages, and eventually took Martinez to his house where he sexually assaulted and raped 16 her. A few days later, Martinez’s friend’s mother reported the rape to authorities. The principal 17 and law enforcement then interviewed Martinez. Regrettably, the District callously informed 18 Martinez that she would not be permitted to return to Gonzales High and would need to transfer to 19 a different school in the midst of the semester. Subsequently, Daw faced arrest for his abuse of 20 Martinez. 21 II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 22 Martinez initiated this action by filing her Complaint on February 28, 2022. (Declaration 23 of Emily N. Malloch, filed concurrently herewith, [the “Malloch Decl.”] at ¶ 2.) Daw was 24 formally served with the legal documents on July 5, 2022, and subsequently submitted his Answer 25 to the Complaint on July 25, 2022. (Id.) 26 On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff served Daw with Notice of Deposition, setting his 27 deposition for February 9, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. (Malloch Decl. at ¶ 3). A few weeks later, counsel 28 for Defendant Daw served his Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, citing the fact that Defendant -3- PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT IAN DAW’S DEPOSITION 1 Daw had become unresponsive to his counsel. (Id. at 4). Despite this, neither Defendant Daw nor 2 his attorney served any objection to Plaintiff’s Deposition Notice. (Id.) 3 On February 7, 2024, the Zoom link for Daw’s deposition was provided to all counsel, and 4 still Defendant Daw did not provide any notice regarding his intent not to appear at deposition. 5 (Malloch Decl. at ¶ 5). On February 9, 2024, Defendant Daw did not appear for his deposition and 6 neither did his counsel of record. Plaintiff met and conferred with Daw’s counsel, who indicated 7 that he did not have the authority to provide new dates for Daw’s deposition, as Daw had become 8 completely unresponsive. (Id. at ¶ 6). Plaintiff proceeded with taking a certificate of 9 nonappearance. (Id.) To date, new dates have not been provided for Daw’s deposition. (Id. at ¶ 7). 10 III. PLAINTIFF MAY MOVE FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DAW’S 11 ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION 12 California Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450(a) provides that: 13 “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a 14 person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 15 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to 16 produce for inspection any document or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an 17 order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document or tangible thing 18 described in the deposition notice.” 19 Where good cause exists for the requested deposition, the court should grant the motion to 20 compel the deponent's attendance at the deposition and his production of requested documents 21 (See Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.450(b)(1)). As noted above, good cause exists here as 22 Defendant Daw is a party to this action and has personal knowledge of facts and evidence that are 23 material to Plaintiff’s ability to prove her claims. Further, as evidence that Defendant Daw had no 24 justification for his failures to appear, Daw’s counsel never served Plaintiff with any objections to 25 the deposition notice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.410. 26 On the basis of these facts, and Plaintiff’s compliance with the meet and confer 27 requirements of Code of Civil Procedure §2025.450(b)(2), the court should grant Plaintiff’s 28 motion to compel Defendant Daw to attend his depositions and to produce the requested -4- PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT IAN DAW’S DEPOSITION 1 documents. 2 IV. SANCTIONS SHOULD BE GRANTED 3 California Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450(g)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that if a 4 motion to compel deposition attendance and testimony under Section 2025.450(a) is granted, “the 5 court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in 6 favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the 7 deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial 8 justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Substantial 9 justification “means a justification that is clearly reasonable because it is well-grounded in both law 10 and fact.” (Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434; Parker v. Wolters Kluwer 11 United States, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 285, 292 (finding there was no “substantial justification” 12 where responding party did not deny his failure to meet and confer with the party propounding 13 discovery); Diepenbrock v. Brown (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 743, 749 (finding “substantial 14 justification” where the legal standards governing discovery were not clearly established); Ghanooni 15 v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 260 (finding fear of exposure was not “substantial 16 justification” for refusing to participate in a physical examination).) 17 Sanctions are also appropriate against anyone who engages in conduct that constitutes a 18 misuse of the discovery process, including the failure to respond to an authorized method of 19 discovery. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.030, § 2023.010(d).) The Court shall impose a monetary 20 sanction, ordering that the one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney 21 advising that conduct, or both, pay the reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred by 22 anyone as a result of that conduct, unless the Court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted 23 with substantial justification or that other circumstances exist that make the imposition of the sanction 24 unjust. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.030(a).) 25 Counsel for Defendant Daw has failed to provide any—let alone substantial—justification 26 for Defendant Daw’s failure to appear for deposition pursuant to the February 9, 2024, deposition 27 notice. Defendant Daw did not offer any good faith objection to the deposition notice, and has not 28 given any indication that Defendant Daw will be produced for deposition. Indeed, counsel for -5- PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT IAN DAW’S DEPOSITION 1 Defendant Daw has indicated that he has stopped responding to his own counsel. Thus, there can 2 be no legitimate and substantial justification for Daw’s wholesale refusal to sit for his deposition. 3 Based on this complete disregard of his obligations in discovery, Plaintiff requests a reasonable 4 monetary sanction against Daw in the amount of $500.00. 5 V. CONCLUSION 6 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Monique Martinez respectfully requests that this Court 7 grant this Motion in its entirety and issue an order compelling Defendant Ian Daw to attend his 8 deposition within 20 days of the Court’s Order on this Motion, and awarding monetary sanctions 9 against Defendant Daw in the amount of $500.00. 10 11 DATED: March 21, 2024 GREENBERG GROSS LLP 12 13 By: 14 Brian L. Williams Daniel S. Cha 15 Emily N. Malloch Attorneys for Plaintiff MONIQUE MARTINEZ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6- PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT IAN DAW’S DEPOSITION 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 Martinez v. Gonzales Unified School District Case No. 22CV00054 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE 4 At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am 5 employed in the County of Orange, State of California. My business address is 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1700, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. 6 On March 21, 2024, I served true copies of the following document(s) described as 7 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT IAN DAW’S DEPOSITION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS OF $500 on the interested parties in 8 this action as follows: 9 Mark E. Davis John F. Klopfenstein Eric J. Bengtson Law Office Of John F. Klopfenstein 10 Davis, Bengtson & Young, APLC 9 West Gabilan Street, Suite 6 1960 The Alameda, Suite 210 Salinas, CA 93901 11 San Jose, CA 95126 Tel: 831.751.3947 / Fax: 831.751.3982 Tel: 669.245.4200 / Fax: 408.985.1814 john.klopfenstein@yahoo.com 12 mdavis@dby-law.com eric@dby-law.com Attorney for Defendant Ian James Daw 13 jheaton@dby-law.com (Legal Assistant) 14 Attorneys for Defendant, Gonzales Unified School District 15 BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the 16 document(s) to be sent from e-mail address AMaciel@GGTrialLaw.com to the persons at the e- mail addresses listed in the Service List. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the 17 transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 19 Executed on March 21, 2024, at Costa Mesa, California. 20 21 /s/ Adam Maciel 22 Adam Maciel 23 24 25 26 27 28 -7- PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT IAN DAW’S DEPOSITION