(Super. Ct. No. 06FL07064)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Blease , Acting P. J.
Marriage of Castaneda CA3
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Manuel Castaneda (husband) appeals from a postjudgment order directing him to produce documents responsive to a notice to produce documents at trial and to pay $3,155 in monetary sanctions in the form of attorney fees and costs to Rebecca Handal (wife) under Family Code section 271.*fn1
Husband contends the trial court abused its discretion and violated his federal and state constitutional right to due process of law by basing the sanctions award on his and his counsel's conduct at husband's deposition, a ground not asserted by wife in her motion to compel. He claims that because he had no notice that sanctions might be imposed based on what happened at his deposition, he was deprived of his statutory and constitutional right to notice and an opportunity to be heard. He also asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in summarily dismissing his request for attorney fees from wife. He does not appeal that portion of the order directing him to produce documents.
We shall conclude, as husband contends, that the sanctions award was based on husband and husband's counsel's conduct at husband's deposition and not on husband's objections to the notice to produce documents at trial. We shall further conclude, however, that the lack of a reporter's transcript for the hearing on wife's motion to compel requires us to assume that the trial court complied with its statutory and constitutional obligations and informed the parties that it was considering imposing sanctions based on husband and husband's counsel's conduct at the deposition and provided husband an opportunity to address whether sanctions were proper on that basis. Finally, we shall reject husband's contention that the trial court abused its discretion in summarily dismissing his request for attorney fees from wife. Accordingly, we shall affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Husband and wife were married for 16 years and have one minor child. The parties marriage was dissolved by a judgment of dissolution entered in March 2007. At the end of 2009, husband filed a postjudgment motion to modify child and spousal support based on his loss of employment. A trial was initially set for September 16, 2010, and later was continued to February 18, 2011.
On August 22, 2010, wife served on husband a notice of taking husband's deposition, which directed husband to bring with him to the deposition 33 categories of documents. The deposition was twice re-noticed and was eventually set for February 3, 2011. Each amended notice was accompanied by an order directing husband to bring with him to the deposition 34 categories of documents. The categories of documents requested largely pertained to husband's financial condition and efforts to obtain employment.
On January 28, 2011, wife served on husband a notice to produce documents at trial pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987, subdivision (c), which requested husband bring with him to trial 38 separate categories of documents. The categories of documents specified were essentially the same as those set forth in the various deposition notices.
On February 2, 2011, husband served wife with his objections to the notice to produce documents at trial.
The following day, February 3, 2011, husband and his counsel appeared for husband's deposition and brought with them documents responsive to some of the document requests set forth in the notice of deposition.
On February 9, 2011, wife provided notice to husband that she would be seeking ex parte relief from the trial court the following day relating to her notice to produce documents at trial. In her application, wife requested an ex parte order that husband produce documents at trial pursuant to the notice to produce documents at trial, or an order shortening time for a hearing on her motion for such an order, and requested $2,592.50 in attorney fees and costs "associated with responding to ...