Gibson releases exclusive new 'historic' PAF: 1959 Humbucker Collector’s Edition Series 1

[NickiC]

Series 2 has arrived....

Series 1 still on sale. Series 2 differs from Series 1 in that Series 1 are A4, while Series 2 are A2.

And series 2 is Murphy Aged, pass.
Nothing wrong at all with the Murphy touch. It’s just not for me. Even Antiquities.

The series 1, I jumped on after opening the email announcing them. And got low serial numbers.
Ordered in 15min after that email was delivered. First I heard about series 2, was this morning.

 

[NickiC]

And you don't even have them set high. It seems odd given their description of them and the hype.

Imo for warmer slinkier tones '57 Classics, and for brighter edgier tones BB1's.

What do you mean by noticeably compressed? Are they lacking lowend, but break up to quickly? Or are they lacking highs?

I am sorry, but I can’t remember exactly.

 

[wizardmc]

Who has installed them? It's been some time now. What do you think?

 

[ppgf]

True. I figure maybe he was damaged from getting felt up by Ron Thorn or something.

Case Number: 23AHCV00396 Hearing Date: April 23, 2025 Dept: P
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a sexual assault action brought by Plaintiff Jane Doe 8004 ("Plaintiff") against Defendant Ron
Thorn ("Defendant"). On February 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed this action asserting claims for (1) Sexual Assault,
2) Sexual Battery, and (3) Gender Violence. Defendant filed an answer to the complaint on September 15,
2023.
On March 11, 2025, Defendant filed the instant motion for terminating sanctions. Plaintiff did not file a
timely opposition. On March 27, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff's ex parte application to continue the
hearing on the motion to allow newly substituted counsel additional time to file a formal opposition. Despite
the continuance, no opposition has been filed.
I . L E G A L STANDARD
A party may bring a request for sanctions by bringing a noticed motion with a supporting declaration
setting forth facts supporting the sanctions requested. (CCP § 2023.040.) A party seeking sanctions is not
required to meet and confer before bringing a motion under § 2023.040. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc v.
Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 141 Cal. App. 4th 390, 311. The Court has the authority to, after notice
and an opportunity for a hearing, impose sanctions on anyone engaging in a misuse of the discovery process.
(CCP § 2023.030.) Misuse of the discovery process includes, but is not limited to, failing to respond or submit
to an authorized method of discovery; making an evasive discovery response, and disobeying a court order to
provide discovery. (CCP § 2023.010(d), (f), (g).) The sanctions the Court can impose for misuse of the
discovery process include terminating sanctions, by issuing an order dismissing the action against that party.
(CCP § 2023.030(d), (e).) Terminating sanctions should be used sparingly and the trial court should attempt
less severe alternatives unless the record clearly shows lesser sanctions would be ineffective to induce the
offending party's compliance. (R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal. App. 4th 486, 496
(finding terminating sanctions proper where plaintiffs violated two discovery orders).)
III. ANALYSIS
This case has been pending for over two years. During that time, Plaintiff has demonstrated a
consistent and escalating disregard for her discovery obligations and this Court's authority. Notably, Plaintiff
was represented by counsel for the first eight months of Defendant's discovery efforts and still failed to
comply.
The record reflects the following violations of court orders:
1. December 6, 2024, Order - The Court granted Defendant's motion to compel production of Plaintiff's
medical records and ordered Plaintiff to produce responsive documents and pay $1,125.00 in sanctions
by December 26, 2024. Plaintiff failed to comply. (12/6/24 Order; Motion, p.6)
2. December 16, 2024, Order - The Court granted three motions to compel responses to form
interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production (set three), and deemed requests for
admission (set one) admitted. The Court ordered Plaintiff to respond and pay $2,113.36 in sanctions by
January 6, 2025. Plaintiff again failed to comply. (12/16/24 Order; Motion, p.6)
3. February 4, 2025, Order - The Court granted Defendant's motion to compel Plaintiff's deposition and
ordered Plaintiff to appear within 30 days and pay $2,475.00 in sanctions. Plaintiff appeared at the
hearing, acknowledged the Court's ruling, and represented she would retain counsel that day. No
counsel appeared, no sanctions were paid, and Plaintiff failed to appear for her deposition noticed for
February 18, 2025. (2/4/2025 Order; Motion, pp. 6-7)
Prior to her substitution of counsel on October 30, 2024, Plaintiff was represented by counsel during
the period in which multiple discovery requests were propounded and several extensions were granted.
Despite these extensions, the requested medical records were not produced in full. Plaintiff's prior counsel had
indicated that additional records would be forthcoming, but no complete production occurred. Plaintiff
thereafter filed a substitution of attorney and elected to proceed in pro per. While the Court makes no finding
as to the reasons for counsel's withdrawal, the timing suggests that Plaintiff's limited engagement in discovery
may have contributed to counsels' decision to withdraw.
Plaintiff's self-represented status does not excuse her failure to comply with discovery obligations or
court orders. A litigant has the right to act as their own attorney but must adhere to the same rules of procedure
and evidence as licensed attorneys; otherwise, "ignorance is unjustly rewarded." (Doran v. Dreyer (1956) 143
Cal.App.2d 289, 290 [299 P.2d 661]; Harding v. Collazo (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 1044, 1055; see also Knapp v.
Fleming (1953) 127 Colo. 414, 419 [258 P.2d 489].) As California courts have consistently held, "[p]ro. per.
litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys." (Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal. App.4th
536, 543.) Plaintiff's decision to proceed in pro per does not shield her from the consequences of continued
noncompliance.
Despite receiving multiple continuances, warnings, and accommodations, Plaintiff has failed to file any
opposition to this motion-even after the Court granted an ex parte request to allow new counsel time to
respond. No discovery responses have been served, no depositions have occurred, and no sanctions have been
paid. Her failure to engage meaningfully in the litigation process has prejudiced Defendant's ability to prepare
for trial and undermines the integrity of the Court's discovery orders.
The Court finds that Plaintiff's pattern of discovery abuse is willful, egregious, and ongoing. The
violations pre-date her substitution of counsel and have continued without interruption. The record clearly
shows that lesser sanctions have failed and would remain ineffective. Under these circumstances, terminating
sanctions are warranted.
Monetary sanctions
In addition to seeking terminating sanctions, Defendant requests monetary sanctions in the amount of
$9,179.09 to compensate for attorney's fees, court reporter costs, and filing fees incurred in bringing this
motion. The Court finds that Defendant is entitled to a partial award of monetary sanctions based on the
reasonable expenses incurred. Specifically, the declaration of Tiffany Gutierrez establishes that defense
counsel incurred $1,070.75 in court reporter fees for Plaintiff's nonappearance at her duly noticed deposition
on February 18, 2025. (Gutierrez Decl., 9 16.) Counsel further declares that preparing the instant motion
required more than 19 hours of attorney time—14.2 hours by Ms. Gutierrez at a rate of $250 per hour, and 5.2
hours by senior attorney Edward Wilde at a rate of $600 per hour. (Id., 4 19-20.) Defendant also requests time
for anticipated work, including 4 hours to review and reply to any opposition, 1 hour to prepare for and attend
the hearing, and reimbursement for filing fees totaling $93.34. (Id., 19 21-22.)
Plaintiff filed no opposition. Therefore, the Court excludes the requested 4 hours for reviewing and
replying to opposition from the fee calculation. The Court grants $7,834.09 in sanctions - (14.2 hours X
$250/hr + 5.2 hours X $600/hr + $1,070.75 Court Reporter Fee and $93.34 filing fees)
IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The Court GRANTS Defendant's motion for terminating sanctions and dismisses this case with
prejudice. The Court GRANTS Defendant's request for monetary sanctions, and awards Defendant $7,834.09
to be paid by Plaintiff within 30 days' notice of this order.
Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this order.
Dated: April 23, 2025
JARED D. MOSES