Plaintiff Joe Ortiz's Motion for Monetary, Issue, and Terminating Sanctions (ROA #397) Plaintiffs Joe Ortiz, Robert Hernandez, Damian Meza and Cristopher Trujillo’s (collectively, “Ortiz”) motion for issue and terminating sanctions is DENIED. Ortiz’s first evidentiary objection is OVERRULED. His second is SUSTAINED. Defendants’ evidentiary objections are OVERRULED. At the hearing, the parties should be prepared to address the effect denial of this motion has on the pending motion for class certification. This motion follows a series of Court orders to produce discovery responses and significant monetary and issue sanctions levied against Defendants. The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with those orders and will not discuss them in detail. Ortiz now seeks issue sanctions (specifically, certifying a class and barring Defendants from opposing class certification) and terminating sanctions based on what he contends is Defendants’ continued failure to comply with those orders. I. Sta
Hearing Date
November 12, 2021
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Plaintiff Joe Ortiz's Motion for Monetary, Issue, and Terminating Sanctions (ROA #397) Plaintiffs Joe Ortiz, Robert Hernandez, Damian Meza and Cristopher Trujillo’s (collectively, “Ortiz”) motion for issue and terminating sanctions is DENIED. Ortiz’s first evidentiary objection is OVERRULED. His second is SUSTAINED. Defendants’ evidentiary objections are OVERRULED. At the hearing, the parties should be prepared to address the effect denial of this motion has on the pending motion for class certification. This motion follows a series of Court orders to produce discovery responses and significant monetary and issue sanctions levied against Defendants. The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with those orders and will not discuss them in detail. Ortiz now seeks issue sanctions (specifically, certifying a class and barring Defendants from opposing class certification) and terminating sanctions based on what he contends is Defendants’ continued failure to comply with those orders. I. Sta