Court Opinion

ID: 9390836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 18:02:43.187581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:37.465768
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/28/23 Wood v. Maleev CA1/4
        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not
certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not
been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                            FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                        DIVISION FOUR

 CHRISTOPHER WOOD et al.,
      Plaintiffs and
 Respondents,                                                 A166584

 v.                                                           (Alameda County
 DANIEL MALEEV et al.,                                        Super. Ct. No.
                                                              RG19033563)
      Defendants and
 Appellants.

          Defendants Daniel Maleev and Ivan Maleev appeal after
entry of judgment in this dog-bite case, seeking review of orders
(1) granting plaintiffs Christopher Wood’s and Carolin Sue
Wood’s motion to compel further responses to various discovery
requests and awarding the Woods $4,800 in sanctions against the
Maleevs; and (2) denying the Maleevs’ request for attorney’s fees.
Because the record provided by the Maleevs fails to demonstrate
that either order constitutes reversible error, we affirm.
                                         BACKGROUND
          After an incident in which Daniel Maleev’s dog allegedly bit
Christopher Wood at a dog park, Christopher and his wife,
Carolin Sue Wood, sued Daniel Maleev and his father, Ivan, for
negligence, strict liability, and loss of consortium. The Woods

                                                      1
propounded 87 special interrogatories, 87 form interrogatories,
and 62 requests for production of documents.1 On September 28,
2020, the Maleevs responded solely with objections. The parties
then exchanged letters and emails about the propriety of the
Maleevs’ responses, at the end of which the Maleevs asked the
Woods to withdraw the discovery requests and offered instead to
provide sworn declarations and stipulate to undisputed facts.
      Pursuant to the trial court’s local rules in effect at the time,
on November 12, 2020, the Woods requested an informal
discovery conference with the court as a prelude to filing a motion
to compel further responses. After various delays, the trial court
held the informal discovery conference on March 1, 2021. The
record does not contain a transcript or a substitute for a
transcript describing what occurred at the conference. A minute
order posted after the conference states, “The court conducts an
informal discovery conference in chambers. Parties may file a
discovery motion. This order is valid until 08/2021.”
      The parties again met and conferred after the discovery
conference but were still unable to resolve their differences. On
April 30, 2021, the Woods filed motions to compel the Maleevs to
provide further responses to their discovery requests. The
Maleevs opposed the motions by arguing, among other things,

      1 As we will explain, the Maleevs did not provide a complete
record, so we have been unable to directly confirm various
matters, such as the volume of discovery the Woods propounded
or the nature of the Maleevs’ responses. For the purposes of this
summary of the background of this case, we accept the Maleevs’
characterization of some of these facts.

                                  2
that the motions were untimely. They also asked for an award of
attorney’s fees under section 2023.020 of the Code of Civil
Procedure because the Woods allegedly failed to meet and confer
in good faith before filing the motions.2
      The trial court issued a tentative ruling granting the
motions and imposing $7,200 in sanctions against the Maleevs
and their counsel. The trial court tentatively ruled the motions
were timely because they were filed before the August 2021
deadline set in the minute order after the informal discovery
conference. The Maleevs filed an ex parte application seeking
leave to submit additional briefing regarding whether they
received sufficient notice that the deadline was tolled by the
minute order and whether they acted with substantial
justification in believing it had not been tolled, which would have
been grounds for denying the Woods’ request for sanctions. The
trial court denied the application.
      After a hearing at which the trial court denied the Maleevs’
attempt to present the arguments they had wanted to make in
supplemental briefing, in May 2021 the trial court issued orders
granting the motions and imposing $4,800 in sanctions.
      In July 2021, the Maleevs moved to set aside the sanctions,
arguing they were not on notice that the deadline had been
tolled. The trial court denied the motion.

      2Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil
Procedure. Undesignated citations to rules are to the California
Rules of Court.

                                  3
      In December 2021, Christopher Wood accepted the
Maleevs’ offer under section 998 and agreed to dismiss his
negligence and strict liability claims in exchange for $10,000 plus
litigation costs. Carolin Sue Wood then voluntarily dismissed the
loss of consortium claim.
      In May 2022, the Maleevs moved for an award of attorney’s
fees under section 2023.020 based on the Woods’ failure to meet
and confer in good faith before filing their motions to compel.
The trial court denied the motion.
      In October 2022, the trial court entered judgment pursuant
to section 998. The Maleevs appealed the orders (1) denying their
ex parte request to submit supplemental briefing, (2) granting
the Woods’ motions to compel and imposing sanctions,
(3) denying the Maleevs’ motion to set aside the sanctions, and
(4) denying their motion for attorney’s fees.
                            DISCUSSION
I.   Timeliness and Due Process
      The Maleevs first argue the order imposing monetary
sanctions on them should be vacated because the Woods’ motions
to compel further responses to the discovery requests were
untimely and the sanctions violated due process.
      The statutes authorizing the Woods’ motions to compel
further discovery responses state that “[u]nless notice of [the
motion to compel] is given within 45 days of the service of the
verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or
before any specific later date to which the propounding party and
the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding

                                 4
party waives any right to compel a further response to the”
interrogatories or requests for production of documents.
(§§ 2030.300, subd. (c); 2031.310, subd. (c).) The 45-day deadline
in these statutes is “ ‘jurisdictional’ in the sense that it renders
the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other
than to deny them.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997)
58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)
      The trial court’s local rules at the time required parties to
request an informal discovery conference pursuant to former
section 2016.080. (Super. Ct. Alameda County, Local Rules,
former rule 3.31 [eff. Jan. 1, 2019]; former § 2016.080, subd. (a),
added by Stats. 2017, ch. 189, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2018, amended by
Stats. 2018, ch. 92, § 44, eff. Jan. 1, 2019 & repealed Jan. 1,
2023.) Former section 2016.080, subdivision (a) stated, “If an
informal resolution is not reached by the parties, as described in
Section 2016.040, the court may conduct an informal discovery
conference upon request by a party or on the court’s own motion
for the purpose of discussing discovery matters in dispute
between the parties.” Subdivision (c)(2) of former section
2016.080 further provided, “If an informal discovery conference is
granted or ordered, the court may toll the deadline for filing a
discovery motion or make any other appropriate discovery order.”
The trial court’s local rules stated, “The emailed request for an
IDC will toll the deadline for filing the discovery motion for the
number of days between the request and issuance by the court of
a subsequent order or, denial by operation of law.” (Super. Ct.
Alameda County, Local Rules, former rule 3.31(4).)

                                   5
      The Maleevs contend that the 45-day period began to run
on September 28, 2020, when they served their responses, and
was four days from expiring when the Woods requested the
informal discovery conference. They argue the local rules then
tolled the deadline until March 1, 2021, when the trial court
issued its order following the conference, and therefore expired
long before the Woods filed their motions on April 30, 2021.
      The Maleevs concede that the trial court could toll the
deadline after the discovery conference based on subdivision
former section 2016.080, subdivision (c)(2). They also recognize
that the post-discovery conference order stated, “Parties may file
a discovery motion. This order is valid until 08/2021.” But the
Maleevs argue this is insufficient for various reasons, asserting
that an order cannot impliedly toll the deadline, the “08/2021”
deadline is vague because it does not say when in August 2021
the deadline would expire, and the court did not mention
anything about tolling during the informal discovery conference.
They also contend that due process prevented the trial court from
imposing sanctions until they had a chance to brief whether they
acted with substantial justification in believing the deadline had
not been tolled.
      The Maleevs’ arguments all depend on what transpired at
the informal discovery conference, but they have not provided a
sufficient record of what happened at the conference to
demonstrate reversible error. Rule 8.120(b) provides three
alternatives if an appellant “intends to raise any issue that
requires consideration of the oral proceedings in the superior

                                 6
court . . . : [¶] (1) A reporter’s transcript under rule 8.130; [¶] (2)
An agreed statement under rule 8.134; or [¶] (3) A settled
statement under rule 8.137.” The Maleevs have failed to follow
any of these alternatives. Given that the discovery conference
was intended to be informal, the absence of a reporter’s transcript
is not surprising, although the Maleevs do not say that it would
have been impossible to bring a court reporter to the conference.
But there is no apparent reason why the Maleevs could not have
provided an agreed statement or a settled statement after
noticing their appeal, either of which would have resolved the
questions of what, exactly, the trial court stated at the discovery
conference regarding tolling, and whether the Maleevs had
sufficient notice of the tolling issue to satisfy due process.
      “ ‘It is well settled, of course, that a party challenging a
judgment [or order] has the burden of showing reversible error by
an adequate record.’ [Citation.] ‘ “A judgment or order of the
lower court is presumed correct.” ’ ” (Elena S. v. Kroutik (2016)
247 Cal.App.4th 570, 574.) In the absence of a record of the oral
proceedings, “ ‘ “any condition of facts consistent with the validity
of the judgment will be presumed to have existed rather than one
which would defeat it . . . .” ’ ” (Id. at p. 575.) We must therefore
presume the trial court discussed tolling at the informal
discovery conference, and we resolve any ambiguity or vagueness
in the minute order in favor of the trial court’s action. (Ibid.
[absence of record of oral proceedings prevented appellant from
rebutting presumption that he orally stipulated in trial court to
having matter heard by commissioner].)

                                   7
      Apart from the presumptions favoring the trial court’s
order, the record the Maleevs have provided gives specific reason
to question their account of what transpired at the discovery
conference. At the hearing on the Woods’ motions to compel, the
Maleevs asserted that at the discovery conference the trial court
had only instructed the clerk not to require another informal
discovery conference in the case and had not mentioned tolling.
The trial court interrupted to state that the Maleevs were
“making an inaccurate record” of what took place at the discovery
conference. The court did not describe the specific discussions
that took place at the conference, but its remarks nonetheless
indicate that it disagreed with the same assertions the Maleevs
now make about what transpired. It was therefore essential for
the Maleevs to supply a proper record of the oral proceedings.
      If the parties could not stipulate to an agreed statement of
the discussions at the discovery conference (rule 8.134), a settled
statement would have sufficed. Briefly summarized, to create a
settled statement, an appellant prepares a summary of the oral
proceedings, and the respondent may respond. (Rule 8.137(d)–
(e).) The trial court reviews the summary and response, if any,
and corrects or modifies the summary to make it accurate. (Rule
8.137(f).) The parties then have a chance to prepare proposed
modifications or objections. (Former rule 8.137(g).)3

      3 The Judicial Council slightly amended rule 8.137(g),
effective April 1, 2023. (Judicial Council, Amendment to the
California Rules of Court, rule 8.137, available at
 [as of April 28,

                                 8
      Had the Maleevs followed this procedure, we would have a
record of the positions that they, the trial court, and likely the
Woods took regarding what occurred during the informal
discovery conference. If the Maleevs objected to whatever
corrected statement the trial court issued, there may not have
been a conclusive record of the discovery conference. But the
process of creating the corrected statement would have required
the trial court to detail specifically its view of what took place at
the conference, which would defeat the need to infer facts
supporting the trial court’s action and would facilitate our review.
The absence of a settled statement, by contrast, prevents the
Maleevs from rebutting the presumptions favoring the trial
court’s ruling. (Elena S. v. Kroutik, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at
p. 575.)
II.   Attorney’s fees
      The Maleevs next argue the trial court erred in denying
their request for attorney’s fees. The Maleevs’ request rested on
section 2023.020, which states in full, “Notwithstanding the
outcome of the particular discovery motion, the court shall
impose a monetary sanction ordering that any party or attorney
who fails to confer as required pay the reasonable expenses,
including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that
conduct.” The Maleevs contend they are entitled to attorney’s
fees because the Woods did not make a reasonable and good faith

2023].) The amendment is immaterial to this case, as the
procedure for preparing a settled statement is the same under
both versions of the rule.

                                  9
attempt to resolve each of the issues raised in the Woods’
motions.
      The trial court did not award the Maleevs any attorney’s
fees when it ruled on the Woods’ motions to compel, even though
the Maleevs included a request with their opposition to those
motions. It also denied the Maleevs’ motion for attorney’s fees at
the end of the case. The Maleevs raise various reasons why they
believe the latter ruling was error. We need not consider the
merits of these arguments, however. The Maleevs must establish
prejudice to obtain a reversal based on any error, meaning a
reasonable probability of a more favorable result (People v.
Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836), and the Maleevs have not
provided an adequate record for this purpose.
      The Maleevs’ request for attorney’s fees was based on their
contention that the Woods failed to discuss the objections the
Maleevs raised in their discovery responses. But the Woods
refused to meet and confer about each individual objection in the
Maleevs’ responses because the Woods believed the objections
were themselves not in good faith. The Woods pointed out that
the Maleevs objected to every single discovery request.
      The Maleevs’ refusal to respond to any discovery request,
including form interrogatories, itself suggests that the Woods
have the better of this argument, but we need not ultimately
answer that question. To determine whether the Maleevs have a
reasonable probability of convincing the trial court that the
Woods did not confer reasonably and in good faith, we would need
to see the Woods’ discovery requests and the Maleevs’ responses

                                10
in full. But the appellate record the Maleevs have provided
contains only one set of special interrogatories and none of their
original responses. The only responses in the record are the
Maleevs’ supplemental responses to the special interrogatories.
The Maleevs served those responses after the Woods had filed
their motions to compel and the responses consist entirely of
cross-references to signed declarations by the Maleevs, so they
prove nothing about the reasonableness of the Woods’ refusal to
discuss each of the Maleevs’ original objections. The Woods’
motions, which are in the record, indicate that the Woods
supported each motion with the required separate statement
containing both the discovery requests and responses. (Rule
3.1345(c).) But the Maleevs did not include those separate
statements in the appendix they prepared for this appeal.
      Because the Maleevs have not provided a record from
which we could discern any prejudice in the denials of their
request for attorney’s fees, much less a record demonstrating
such prejudice, they have not established grounds for reversal of
the trial court’s denial of their request for attorney’s fees.
                           DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                             BROWN, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

STREETER, J.
GOLDMAN, J.
                                             Wood v. Maleev (A166584)

                                  11