Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (9652)	6/20/2006 5:33:44 PM
From: SI Dave	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

I take it that refers to Message 21115633 and that it has been reversed in its entirety? It was pretty obvious that it would never stand, particularly this part: Anyone, or any entity, with notice of this judgment which republishes any past internet posting made by Defendants or any of Defendant's alias (or any other alias of Defendants known to said persons or entities) which identifies Plaintiffs or Michael Zwebner and/or which aids and/or assists either Defendant in violation of this order is also in violation and could be held in criminal and/or civil contempt. Correct me of I'm wrong, but that portion of the ruling was previously vacated, no?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (9652)	11/9/2006 12:22:22 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

Re: 11/7/06 - [Zwebner] Worldwide Water v Airwater: "Defendants and their counsel are ordered to pay Plaintiff’s attorneys fees and costs..." TENTATIVE RULING - DEPT.C NOVEMBER 07, 2006 CALENDAR NUMBER: 6 WORLDWIDE WATER LLC v. AIRWATER CORPORATION et al CASE NO. SC0088178 1. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE OR ALTERNATIVELY TO RECONSIDER ORDER TO COMPEL RESPONSES 2. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TERMINATING OR OTHER SANCTIONS Defendants Zwebner and Airwater Corporation move the court to vacate or to reconsider its August 10, 2006 ruling granting Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery responses. They argue that in the time leading up to the August 10 hearing they operated under the impression that the parties agreement to “continue all activity” (see Case Management Statement, attached as Exh. A to Van Wagoner decl. filed in support of motion to vacate or reconsider) in the case and that their understanding was that the motions to compel would presumably have been taken of calendar. However, the court notes the transcript of the June 30, 2006 hearing at which the Case Management Statement was submitted and the matter discussed. The court and parties plainly discussed the motions to compel and continued them to August 10. Defendants were therefore clearly aware that the motions remained in issue and were set for a new hearing date, See Transcript, attached as Exh. 20 to appendix in support of Motion for Sanctions. The court therefore finds no basis to conclude that the failure to oppose or to appear at the August 10, 2006 hearing was the result of 473(b) mistake or inadvertence. Nor have Defendants offered new facts or law justifying a § 1008 reconsideration of that order: whether on not Defendant Zwebner was in Israel and whether or not that rendered him incommunicado prior to August 10 does not excuse his failure monitor whether the motions had gone off calendar, to oppose them, or appear at the hearing. If the court were to reconsider, it would rely on the same rationale to affirm its August 10, 2006 ruling. Defendants’ motion to vacate or reconsider is DENIED. 2. TERMINATING SANCTIONS CCP § 2023.030(d) allows the Court to Impose terminating sanctions against a party misusing the discovery process, via (1) striking out the pleading of the party, (2) staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed, (3) dismissing all or part of the action, or (4) rendering a judgment by default against the party, Alternately, the Court may impose issue or evidentiary sanctions for this misuse. CCP § 2023.030(b) and (c). The Court may also impose monetary sanctions. CCP § 2023.030(a). Plaintiff moves for terminating sanctions, arguing that a termination is warranted by Defendants’ failure to respond to discovery requests, mischaracterization of a purported agreement regarding an informal 45-day stay between the parties, failure to appear at the August 10, 2006 hearing regarding the discovery, and deficient responses served shortly after the order. The court finds that terminating sanctions would be excessive at this juncture. Having reviewed the discovery responses, the court firmly agrees that they are deficient. The court does not consider Defendants’ counsel’s explanation (see Exh. 3 attached to Reply in support of Motion for Terminating Sanctions) of a mistake by his office In transmitting the August 18 responses. Counsel signed the August 16, 2006 responses and is responsible for their content. The court declines to consider the sufficiency of the “replacement” responses. Within the discretion granted it by CCP § 2023.030, the court declines to issue a terminating sanction. Based on the deficient responses and Defendants unsatisfactory explanations for its failure to provide adequate responses in a timely manner to basic discovery, the court imposes the following sanctions: Defendants are ordered to provide full and complete responses, without objection, and in compliance with relevant discovery statutes, within 10 days of this hearing. Defendants and their counsel are ordered to pay Plaintiff’s attorneys fees and costs for bringing this motion. Plaintiffs are to file a declaration setting forth such costs and fees and serve the declaration on Defendants’ counsel. Payment to be made, or objection to the amount, filed with the court, within 10 days of service of that declaration.