Gibson v. Sup. Ct
Filed 6/7/06 Gibson v. Sup. Ct. CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| PAULA LAUREN GIBSON, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; LAW OFFICES OF HAROLD GREENBERG et al., Real Parties in Interest. | No. B181176 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC299713) |
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. Susan Bryant Deason, Judge. Petition denied.
Paula Lauren Gibson, in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Jacks & Maybaum and Bradley W. Jacks for Real Parties in Interest.
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Paula Lauren Gibson (Gibson) is the former attorney for the plaintiff, Annette Goode Parker (plaintiff). Plaintiff is not a party to this writ proceeding. The trial court issued two sanction awards in the amounts of $500 and $2,000 against Gibson in favor of real parties in interest, the Law Offices of Harold Greenberg, Harold Greenberg, and Carlos Fisco (collectively Greenberg), in relation to discovery disputes. Gibson seeks an order directing the trial court to reverse the two sanction awards. Finding no abuse of discretion, we deny the petition.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In July 2003, Gibson filed this action on behalf of plaintiff.[1] Plaintiff alleged that defendants committed legal malpractice in relationship to underlying divorce and bankruptcy proceedings.
1. The $500 Discovery Sanction
On October 14, 2003, Greenberg propounded to plaintiff a first set of document requests, containing 90 documents requests.
On November 8, 2003, Gibson, on behalf of plaintiff, served responses to Greenberg's first set of document requests. The responses consisted of 10 objections, repeated for almost all of the 90 document requests.[2] No documents were produced.
Greenberg initiated the meet-and-confer process on November 17, 2003. In a letter to Gibson, Greenberg rejected the merits of plaintiff's written objections. Greenberg also requested further responses and production of all non-privileged documents.
Gibson responded by e-mail on November 20, 2003. In the e-mail, Gibson stated that she would contact Greenberg during the following week to discuss the document production on behalf of plaintiff.
Having received no further communication from Gibson, on December 1, 2003, Greenberg e-mailed Gibson to inquire about the status of plaintiff's document production. Greenberg advised that he would file a motion to compel absent a timely response. The next day, Gibson contacted Greenberg to schedule a telephonic conference for December 5, 2003.
Ultimately, Gibson and Greenberg conducted a meet-and-confer telephonic conference on December 8, 2003. On behalf of plaintiff, Gibson agreed to provide further written responses to the first set of document requests by December 18, 2003. In a confirming December 11, 2003 letter, Gibson also agreed to produce all non-privileged responsive documents.[3]
On December 18, 2003, Gibson served Greenberg with a single amended response to the 90 requests for production contained in the first set of document requests. The single amended response stated that all non-privileged documents would be produced subject to the condition that the documents were being produced solely for purposes of the malpractice case. Because plaintiff's underlying divorce case was pending, Gibson asserted that plaintiff was not waiving the attorney client privilege or work product doctrine with respect to the use of certain documents in the underlying divorce litigation. In addition, plaintiff stated that she would not produce any documents available from the underlying bankruptcy or superior court proceedings.
In response, on December 23, 2003, Greenberg set an e-mail to Gibson. There, Greenberg stated that plaintiff's amended further response was unintelligible. Greenberg rejected plaintiff's condition for production of documents and requested all responsive documents be produced by no later than January 5, 2004. Greenberg also requested that plaintiff prepare a privilege log.
On January 5, 2004, Gibson responded by e-mail. There, Gibson reiterated the conditions for the document production and refused to unconditionally produce the requested documents. Gibson also rejected Greenberg's request that she prepare a privilege log. Gibson requested that Greenberg agree to a â€
