Hartman

Hartman v. Hartman CA1/4

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 22, 2024A168024California2,000 words

Opinion

Opinion

Goldman, J.

BACKGROUND

On September 8, 2022, Hartman filed a motion to compel Melnichenko’s compliance with a deposition subpoena for production of business records (subpoena) and for sanctions. A declaration attached to the motion states that the subpoena was served on Melnichenko twice, first at Melnichenko’s request by email on March 14, 2022, and the second time by personal service on July 10. On January 20, 2023, Melnichenko filed a declaration in opposition to the motion to compel asserting that he had not been served with the subpoena prior to December 26, 2022, when it was served along with the motion to compel. Following a hearing on January 31, 2023, the trial court granted the motion to compel and ordered Melnichenko to pay Hartman’s attorney fees and costs as sanctions based on Melnichenko’s willful failure to comply with the subpoena. A written order was entered and served on April 14, 2023, after which Melnichenko timely filed a notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

The trial court ordered Melnichenko to pay $12,866.70 in sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure2 sections 2025.480, subdivision (j) and 2023.030, subdivision (a). Section 2025.480, subdivision (j), provides that a…

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.