- Online Services Pay Fines, Transcripts...
- Forms & Filing Forms, Fee Schedule...
- Self-Help Self-Rep, Info, FAQs...
- Divisions Civil, Criminal, Family...
- General Info Local Rules, ADA, Maps...
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULING – FAMILY LAW Dept. 23
JUDGE SHELLY J. AVERILL
IN COURTROOM 23
FRIDAY, May 19, 2017 @ 9:30 A.M.
The following Tentative Rulings will become the ruling of the Court unless a party desires to be heard. If you desire to appear and present oral argument as to any motion, it will be necessary for you to contact the Judicial Assistant by telephone at (707) 521-6723 by 4:00 p.m., Thursday, May 18, 2017. Any party requesting an appearance must notify all other opposing parties of their intent to appear.
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS
JUDGE SHELLY J. AVERILL
May 19, 2017
1. SFL 40209-Varela v. Blom: Respondent’s request to change venue to Mendocino County pursuant to CCP §397.5 is granted. Respondent is ordered to comply with CCP §399 upon notice from the court and either pay the fees required to transfer the matter to Mendocino County or complete an Application for Fee Waiver to Mendocino County to waive the fees. This is the second time the Court has granted this request. On 1/6/17 the Court previously entered this same order granting the transfer to Mendocino County. Respondent was then notified by the court of the requirements of CCP §399 and failed to comply with the statute. As a result, the Order to Transfer was vacated on 3/3/17.
2. SFL 40530 IRMO Lambert: Respondent/Wife’s (hereinafter “Wife”) request to issue a Protective Order with regard to any documents produced in response to the Document Demand propounded by Petitioner/Husband (hereinafter “Husband”) is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §2031.060(b). The Court has not individually ruled on each of Husband’s evidentiary objections given the time constraints as a result of the Order Shortening Time granted in this matter. However, the Court has considered the declarations absent any reference to inadmissible hearsay. The Court finds good cause to order that any documents produced shall not be disseminated to any third party, except to experts who may be retained in this matter, and shall not be used for any purpose other than the litigation pending in this action. Any financial documents filed with the court shall also contain redactions of Wife’s social security number, account numbers or birthdates to avoid the possibility of identity theft using information from public records. The Court finds good cause based upon Husband’s own declaration acknowledging prior use of Wife’s Kaiser information. Husband’s position that this inappropriate access to information is not relevant due to it occurring in 2011 and a prior judge not taking any judicial action regarding that intrusion are not persuasive to the issue now before the Court. Additionally, the information requested is all financial in nature and is susceptible to identity theft. Wife’s request to issue a Protective Order with regard to any deposition testimony given by Wife in this action is also GRANTED pursuant to CCP §2025.420(b). The Court finds good cause to order that the deposition testimony and/or transcript shall not be disseminated to any third party by any means and shall not be used for any purpose other than the litigation pending in this matter for the same reasons as set forth above. Husband will not be prejudiced in any way in his ability to access information or present his case in this litigation. Furthermore, Husband’s argument that the Court cannot grant a protective order because Wife failed to comply with CCP §2031.240 is misplaced. Wife is not objecting the production of the documents except as set forth in her objections. Wife’s request is specifically limited to a request for a protective order pursuant to CCP §2031.060(b) and CCP §2025.420(b), both of which can operate independently of any objections to production of the documents. Pursuant to CCP §2031.060(h) and CCP §2025.420(h) the court shall (emphasis added) impose a monetary sanction against any party who unsuccessfully opposes a motion for a protective order. Husband is hereby sanctioned in the amount of $2,500. Said sanction shall be paid at the rate of $100 per month to Wife until paid in full.