London

London v. DRI-HONING CORP.

Good Law
117 Cal. App. 4th 999·12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 240·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 551·2004 Daily Journal DAR 4775·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3408
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 19, 2004C043096California3,768 words

Opinion

Opinion

Davis, J.

In this appeal, we conclude that a motion for discovery monetary sanctions may be made after an underlying motion to compel further response to an inspection demand is litigated. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031, subd. (m).) We will accordingly affirm the trial court’s order imposing over $6,000 in monetary sanctions. (See § 904.1, subd. (a)(12).)

Background

Plaintiff Morrie London (London) sued his former employer, Dri-Honing Corporation (Dri-Honing), and its president, Herman Kaiser, for wrongful termination, age and physical handicap discrimination, fraud, and other causes of action.

At the time of his termination, London managed Dri-Honing’s copper shop and had worked at Dri-Honing for nearly nine years. Dri-Honing claims the primary reason for terminating London’s employment was his insubordination on March 17, 30, and 31, and April 3 and 7, 2000. Dri-Honing also noted that London’s failure to operate the copper shop profitably and failure to maintain adequate inventory influenced the termination.

Through an inspection demand, London sought to inspect documents related to the copper shop’s profitability and inventory. (§ 2031.) Dri-Honing refused to produce most of these…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.