4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/03/20 - Mar 20, 2026

argument

4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/03/20

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three 2h 18m 1 speaker 4 chapters transcribed 9 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What are the initial courtroom procedures and instructions for the oral argument?

Unknown 0:00

Currently it's recording so it's picking up any voices far back of the room, so be careful what you say or if you conversate. Uh for those that are observing, you're just here just to observe. That's all. Uh no nodding your head in disagreement or speaking up. Of course you're just here to observe. Um I think that we only have two cases where you do have a panel change, but it's really quick. So don't step out too long. And then we all kind of know where the restroom's at. outside office end is the restroom. And there's a water uh a water fountain right across from the restroom if you need to take a break. Okay. Thanks.

Unknown 1:28

If that's the one.

Unknown 16:07

All right. Court of Appeal, Fourth Congress of Division Three. Good morning. Welcome to the Cruz Reynosa Courthouse. I'm Justice Delaney. To my right is Justice Gooding and to my left is Justice Scott. We have two matters on calendar today. This panel will hear one of them and then we'll have a brief uh recess for a uh panel change. The first case we're gonna call today is Glickman versus New Meyer Dilian. Parties please approach.

Unknown 17:00

Fellow, when you're ready, uh please uh Give us your appearance and let us know how much of the eleven minutes, if any, you would like to reserve for a response.

David Hayek 17:11

Good morning, Lightning Justice, Honorable Justices. My name is David Hayek.

Unknown 17:15

Please please take the podium only so we can uh get the microphone to

David Hayek 17:18

my name is David Hayek of Hinshawn Colbertson and I'm here on behalf of Appellant Newmeyer and Dillion LLP. I would like to reserve uh three minutes for response. Very well. You proceed. May please a court. Yeah. We were asked to address three different questions in our argument today. Uh the short answer to those is yes, yes, and no, and I'll elaborate. The first question was whether or not A decision regarding the proposed jury instruction that was ordered. Із інedви. Sanctions motion. And as I said, the answer is yes, and here's why. Both In requesting that relief. uh the jury instruction. And in the referees Awarding that relief. The sanctions Okay. were requested in gestal. There was one number, sixteen thousand five hundred and forty five dollars.

David Hayek 18:31

Because there's no allocation between The request for further responses, the request for evidentiary sanctions, the request for issue sanctions including the jury instruction. There's no way to parse that number if any facet Um The order. approving the recommendations of the referee is an error. You can't parse it. So so

Unknown 18:54

if I understand your argument, uh, Mr Hayek. The order on jury instructions has to be has to support the monetary sanctions. Correct. Because that's the way it was presented and that's the way it was ruled upon. And because we can't parse out the sixteen thousand dollars you think that there's a reasonable inference or at least a re an inference we should draw that that jury instruction order is uh supports a portion of that monetary sanction.

David Hayek 19:20

Sure and and as you may recall from the briefing and the uh appendix, the referee specifically said at the end of his Um recommendation in light of the foregoing, referring to everything that had gone before, which included that jury instruction. It's further compounded by the fact that the referee did not award exactly what uh respondent Glickman requested.

Unknown 19:50

Th then

David Hayek 19:50

then

Unknown 19:50

let me ask you this. Does it matter that a jury instruction is not as a sanctioned is not listed in C C P twenty twenty three point zero three zero? As a discovery sanction? Does it matter that that's not one of the options under the code section for a discovery sanction?

David Hayek 20:05

Not at all. Okay. The the key issue which was added by not awarding the exact amount is we don't know what was in the referee's mind when he reduced it to sixteen thousand, was he just rounding it for convenience? Was he actually rewarding appellant for what he lauded as finally code compliant, detailed responses to discovery provided by what was at the time then fairly new counsel in the case that had been brought in. And that's really the crux of the whole case is The discovery at issue was not deficient.