LOS ANGELES
Since 1888
www.dailyjournal.com To subscribe call (866) 531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com © 2026 Daily Journal Corporation. All Rights Reserved
THURSDAY, MAY 14, 2026
VOL. 139 NO. 93
Los Angeles judge admonished again for misconduct
DAR Daily Appellate Report
Contracts: Absent clear, unconditional written acknowledgment creating a new contract, post-expiration partial payments and check notations did not revive time-barred debt. Dawadi v. Adhikari, 4DCA/1, DAR p. 3807 Environmental Law: Agency’s decision not to regulate chemical additive present in recyclable articles that had been deemed hazardous by Congress was unsupported by substantial evidence in the rulemaking record and was unlawful. Alaska Community Action on Toxics v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, DAR p. 3799
By Douglas Saunders Daily Journal Staff Writer T
When Guo tried to push back, Griego snapped, “Listen. I know what I’m talking about, okay?” And when she insisted she knew what she was doing, he shot back, “Well, I beg to differ, because another bench officer has ruled that you’re wrong.” Griego also left the bench mid-hear- ing, telling his judicial assistant, "Ms. Kelley, you know what to do." When proceedings resumed and Guo thanked him, he responded, "Let me finish, geez," and added, "You're in my courtroom. Not your courtroom." Pressing Guo to cite statutory au- thority, he recited Vehicle Code sec- tions before concluding, "You want your cake, and eat it too, right? ... no matter what you said or what you're gonna say, you're not gonna convince me otherwise." The commission cited similar conduct in other hearings. The ad- monishment follows public discipline imposed July 11, 2024, when the commission found Griego repeat- edly interrupted litigants, raised his voice, made disparaging remarks and conveyed the appearance of bias in multiple matters between April and November 2023. In that proceeding, the commis- sion said Griego compared one case to a "Jerry Springer" episode and told litigants in another dispute they were "two pigs in the trough, fighting with each other." The panel also fault- ed him for insisting litigants refer to him as "Your Honor" even when they were not directly addressing him. The commission said Griego's con- duct violated judicial ethics canons requiring judges to remain patient, dignified and courteous and to per- form duties without bias or prejudice. The commission cited as aggra- vating factors multiple acts of mis- conduct across several hearings involving self-represented litigants and Griego's failure to recognize the impropriety of his conduct. Griego was elected to the bench in 2014 after an unsuccessful 2010 judicial campaign in which the Los See Page 3 — LOS ANGELES
he state Commission on Judicial Performance publicly admonished Los Angeles County Superior
Court Judge Thomas J. Griego on Wednesday for mistreating self-rep- resented small claims litigants and mishandling administrative duties, marking his second public discipline in less than two years. The commission found Griego inter- rupted litigants, made disparaging re- marks and twice walked off the bench during hearings. It also faulted him for failing for months to check court and personal mail, delaying responses to commission investigators. In the Matter Concerning Judge Thomas J. Griego, Decision and Order Imposing Public Admonishment (Cal. Comm'n on Jud. Performance, May 13, 2026). Nine commissioners voted to im- pose the sanction. One commissioner was recused and another did not par- ticipate. Griego contested a tentative admonishment issued Dec. 18, 2025, but waived formal proceedings and California Supreme Court review. Griego is represented by Joanna L. Mishler of Rosing Pott & Strohbehn. "Judge Griego is honored to serve the Los Angeles community. He was motivated by his desire to ensure fair and equal justice for all litigants," Mishler said on behalf of her client. "He regrets that his conduct missed the mark, as it does not reflect his dedication to ensuring his judicial work is undertaken in a courteous, impartial, and dignified manner. Judge Griego has learned from this experience and the Commission's findings have been incorporated into his improved practice." A key case in the commission’s 20-page report was Guo v. Herrera, a May 1, 2024, traffic accident matter. The panel found that Griego repeat- edly cut off plaintiff Amy Fang Guo, who spoke accented English, and openly disparaged a related civil rul- ing by another judge as “worthless” and meaningless.
Justin L. Stewart / Daily Journal
Christina Hoffman and Ivan Trigueros Ramirez
Perspective
How a boys camp in the Sierra helped shape a future lawyer
The OpenAI trial and the
end of ‘informal’ communications
The litigation between Elon Musk and OpenAI has become a public demonstration of how modern discovery increasingly turns on informal communications rather than formal corporate records. Central evidence in the case includes handwritten journal entries by OpenAI cofounder Greg Brockman, along with private texts, Slack messages and emails discussing the company’s transition from a nonprofit research lab to a for-profit enterprise. Those communications are being used to examine what executives privately believed and communicated about OpenAI’s restructuring, with jurors likely viewing candid internal messages as more revealing than polished board resolutions or public statements. The case also highlights the growing legal importance of preserving digital communications across platforms such as Slack, Signal, Teams and WhatsApp, as regulators and courts increasingly treat those exchanges like traditional business records. Recent antitrust and securities enforcement actions have imposed major penalties for failing to preserve off-channel or auto-deleted messages. The next frontier is discovery involving AI chatbot interactions, prompt histories and AI-generated communications, which many users mistakenly assume are private but may ultimately become searchable records subject to subpoena and litigation disclosure. By James S. Rubinowitz
By David Houston Daily Journal Editor-in-Chief I van “Navi” Trigueros Ramirez remembers the day a sheriff’s deputy walked into his elementary school in Lost Hills, a tiny farmworker community north of Bakersfield, and gathered the boys known for caus- ing trouble. The children panicked. “We’re all super scared, like, ‘Oh damn, what did we do?’” Trigueros Ramirez recalled with a laugh. Instead, the sheriff offered something unexpected: a free summer camp in the mountains. Then a struggling middle-school student, he was drift- ing away from academics and toward trouble. The depu- ty’s invitation altered the course of his life. Fourteen years later, the son of Mexican immigrants is a UCLA School of Law student preparing to begin a summer internship at global law firm Clyde & Co LLP — an opportunity he credits in large part to the R.M. Pyles Boys Camp and the mentors who guided him there. “I think what changed me most,” he said, “was having someone tell me, ‘I see you. What you’re doing matters.’” The camp, founded in 1949 by oil wildcatter R.M. Pyles, was created to support boys growing up without fathers after World War II. Over the decades, the mission evolved to meet new crises — gang violence in Los Angeles during the 1980s, then widening poverty and social isolation in communities across Southern California.
Today, the nonprofit serves boys facing steep struc- tural barriers. More than 60% live at or below the federal poverty line, 75% identify as Black, Indigenous or people of color, and nearly half come from single-parent house- holds. Now, the nonprofit is launching a similar program for girls. The program combines year-round mentorship with a demanding 12-day wilderness leadership experience that strips away phones, social media and many of the distrac- tions of modern life. “It’s really about work ethic, values, commitment to fam- ily and being proud of who you are,” said Christina Hoff- man, a senior counsel at Clyde & Co who has worked with the camp for nearly three decades. Campers hike miles through the Sierra wilderness car- rying heavy packs, sleeping outdoors and relying on one another. “It’s not easy,” Hoffman said. “But they come back changed.” Trigueros Ramirez arrived at camp in 2012 carrying burdens heavier than any backpack. Born in Mexico, he immigrated to the United States at 6 with his parents, who spoke little English and worked physically demanding jobs to support the family. As a child, he excelled academically, earning straight A’s. But he struggled emotionally with the absence of his over- worked parents from school events and milestones.
See Page 2 — MENTORSHIP
PERSPECTIVE | GUEST COLUMN
Judge keeps deposition protocol in social media bellwether dispute
The crisis of incivility requires immediate judicial attention
By Devon Belcher Daily Journal Staff Writer T
depositions should also apply to the upcoming deposition of therapist Camay Monroe. The plaintiff’s attorneys had argued that the situation was dif- ferent because the defendants had previously objected to Monroe be- ing added as a witness. Under the protocol, according to court filings, the parties alter- nate which side questions treating provider witnesses first in each bellwether case. The social media companies are designated to lead the questioning in the upcoming case involving a minor identified as
By Scott C. Clarkson I n March 2026, counsel in the Uber passenger sexual assault multidistrict litigation pending in the Northern District of Cal- ifornia filed a motion seeking to bar an attorney from further participation in the proceedings after what was de- scribed as extraordinary misconduct during a discovery meet-and-confer. According to the motion, the attor- ney repeatedly referred to opposing counsel as a “pedophile,” “rapist,” “dirt bag,” “scum bag,” made sexu- ally explicit remarks, shouted over opposing counsel and made inappro-
was “outrageous” and “improper,” and the attorney was barred from appearing before the court, partici- pating in depositions, interacting with opposing counsel or otherwise taking part in the MDL proceedings. The court promptly approved the stipula- tion. At a time when discovery abuse and litigation incivility have become increasingly normalized, the North- ern District’s response deserves at- tention. Not because it was dramatic, but because it was immediate. That distinction matters. No number of
priate comments involving counsel’s daughter during the conference. The filing further alleged that this was not an isolated incident, identifying ear- lier discovery conferences in which similarly abusive conduct allegedly occurred. The response from the court was notable not merely because of the seriousness of the allegations, but because of the speed with which the matter was addressed. District Judge Charles R. Breyer set the matter for hearing almost immediately. Within days, the parties submitted a stipula- tion acknowledging that the conduct
he judge overseeing the social media addiction cases in Los Angeles indicated Wednesday
that she would continue applying an existing deposition protocol, sid- ing with the companies in a dispute over who should first question the plaintiff’s new therapist ahead of the next bellwether trial. During an informal discovery conference, Superior Court Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl agreed with the companies that the protocol gov- erning treating health care provider
Read full article, Page 5
See Page 2 — JUDGE
See Page 4 — THE
Visit dailyjournal.com for up-to-date legal news.
PAGE 2 • THURSDAY, MAY 14, 2026
LOS ANGELES DAILY JOURNAL
AI reshapes legal support work, but paralegals see opportunity
By Malcolm Maclachlan Daily Journal Staff Writer L egal support professionals will meet in Sacramento through the weekend — and they will have a lot to talk about. Artificial intelligence and other technological breakthroughs have transformed the day-to-day lives of legal secretaries and paralegals while blurring the lines between traditional roles within a law firm. But leaders in these fields say the job market is healthy. “A lot of people were afraid of AI when it first came,” said Donna Day, a practice assistant at Nixon Peabody LLP in San Francisco. “They're like, ‘Oh my gosh, we're gonna lose our jobs.’ Well, we have really found that that is not the case.” Day is president of Legal Profes- sionals Inc., which represents legal secretaries, paralegals, and other le- gal support staff. The group is hold- ing its 92nd annual conference from Thursday through Sunday, hosted by the Sacramento Legal Professionals
actly what to expect. Griffin now also monitors employ- ment trends as the chair of the Law Practice Management and Technol- ogy Section Executive Committee at the California Lawyers Association. He said he does not think AI is put- ting legal support professionals out of work. No matter how good the tools get, he said, they are far more effective in the hands of someone who understands courts and law firm workflow. “I don't think it's actually replac- ing them,” Griffin said. “It's assisting them, because a lot of them are al- ready overworked.” Figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics show a muddled em- ployment future for the field, with a decline for legal secretaries and a rise for paralegals. But Hunter said expe- rience is always in demand. “The firms that still value legal sec- retaries, it's interesting because legal secretaries make a lot more money now because there's so few of them,” she said. Griffin said that he is seeing growth in hybrid roles, with a premi-
paralegals from taking on some “sub- stantive” legal tasks under the super- vision of an attorney, or from getting more involved in the operations and business side of firms. She added that she regularly re- posts paralegal jobs on her LinkedIn page as a service to her students. Suero said demand is high for people who can combine analytical and com- munication skills with a knowledge of new tools. Hunter, who teaches aspiring paralegals as an adjunct instructor at several schools, said the role is now often a starting point. She often writes recommendations for her for- mer paralegal students who decided after working for a few years that they wanted to apply to law schools — and take on the debt that often comes with them. She could have been describing the career of Hanson Bridgett LLP Asso- ciate Mark G. Griffin. He worked in a support role at the firm while attend- ing law school at night. After gradua- tion, he said, some of his classmates were “shocked” at what it was like to work as an attorney, but he knew ex-
ing to be non-existent in a few years” because of AI. “There's this big misconception that AI will put us out of work,” Hunt- er said. “I haven't seen that.” Rather, Hunter added, junior asso- ciates are often taking the brunt of any dislocation brought on by recent technology. Instead, many firms are taking up the slack with a combina- tion of AI and experienced support staff. “When an attorney comes out of law school, they know the theory of law, but don’t know the practice of law,” Hunter said. “That's an issue. Do you know who gets to train a lot of the new attorneys that come to firms? Legal secretaries and paralegals.” “The utilization of paralegals has been changing,” said Kristine Cus- todio Suero, an educator, consultant, and podcaster. “This has probably been in the last decade. We have seen paralegals being used more in a ca- pacity of advanced legal work.” California is stricter than many states at defining the work paralegals can and cannot do, Suero added. But that has not stopped experienced
um on people who can do the legal filing and other work often associated with legal secretaries but also bill cli- ents as certified paralegals. “I think a lot of times the hybrid role is actually driven by law firm eco- nomics,” he said. “They want some- one that they can build into paralegal capacity, but they can actually do the work of the legal secretary when it comes to filing and understanding the court system.” While much has been written about how AI is going to destroy job pros- pects for educated young people, Day said she is seeing something else. With many attorneys and other staff working hybrid schedules, she said, there is a need for someone in the of- fice who is scanning documents, ac- cepting packages, and sending mail. This allows them to learn the tools and workflow and later move into more senior roles. “What we're finding is that we are able to encourage the younger gen- eration,” Day said. “It's a really good starting point.”
DAY
Association. Along with seminars on legal branding and dealing with insurance companies, AI will be on the agenda. On Friday afternoon, June Hunter will lead a session called “AI in Legal Practice.” The technical enablement lead at DISCO, an AI-powered legal technology platform, said that her husband once said “paralegals are go-
malcolm_maclachlan@dailyjournal.com
State Farm accused of minimizing Eaton Fire smoke damage
San Diego State to pay $300k to settle Title IX athletics suit
Daily Journal Staff Report A ing the insurer engaged in a bad-faith campaign to deny or minimize cov- erage for toxic smoke contamination caused by the 2025 Eaton Fire. The 65-page federal complaint, filed Sunday in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, claims State Farm systemati- cally delayed the homeowners’ claim, repeatedly reassigned adjusters, and relied on allegedly flawed environmen- tal testing to avoid paying for full reme- diation of the family’s home. Los Angeles couple has sued State Farm and its environmental consulting vendor, EFI Global, alleg- In an email response Wednesday, State Farm said that on every claim it “is committed to providing our pol- icyholder with all benefits available under their policy. We look forward to sharing the facts and bringing clarity and context to this matter in court.” EFI Global’s media department did not respond to an emailed request for comment by press time. Plaintiffs Shawn Johnson and his spouse allege their property was heavily contaminated by smoke, soot, ash and toxic chemicals following the wildfire. According to the complaint,
By Douglas Saunders Daily Journal Staff Writer S
an independent industrial hygiene firm, Kaizen Safety Solutions, found combustion byproducts and hazard- ous substances including lead, chro- mium and lithium throughout the res- idence, including inside walls, HVAC systems and personal belongings. The lawsuit contends State Farm dismissed those findings and re- tained EFI Global to conduct a nar- rower inspection designed to reduce the insurer’s financial exposure. EFI Global allegedly failed to perform roof, attic, crawlspace or electrical testing despite representing that such testing was necessary. The complaint further alleges EFI Glob- al employees asked the homeowner where they should conduct sampling, undermining the scientific validity of the inspection. The plaintiffs also accuse State Farm of delaying production of claim documents, forcing the family to re- main displaced from their home for months while facing mounting emo- tional and financial stress. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages for breach of contract, bad faith, negligence and related claims. Beyond the individual dispute, the complaint points to broader regulato-
Plaintiffs contended female ath- letes received less financial aid and support than male athletes within the school’s athletics program. Scholarship allocation can affect whether student-athletes attend and remain enrolled in college and influ- ences access to opportunities tied to collegiate sports programs. Such claims often involve analysis of ath- letic participation rates, financial aid
include an admission of liability. Fisk et al v. Board of Trustees of the Cal- ifornia State University et al., 3:22-cv- 00173-TWR-MSB, (S.D. Cal., filed Feb. 7, 2022) The lawsuit alleged the universi- ty violated Title IX, the federal law barring sex-based discrimination in educational programs receiving fed- eral financial assistance, through dis- parities in scholarship allocation and other athletics resources.
ry scrutiny of State Farm’s wildfire claims practices. The suit references a California Department of Insur- ance market conduct examination launched in 2025 into the insurer’s handling of Eaton and Palisades fire claims, including allegations of de- layed communications, inconsistent adjuster assignments and inadequate investigations. Responding to the Department of Insurance allegations, State Farm’s website states, “We are proud of our response and of the people behind it. Claims professionals, agents, and support teams have worked long hours -- often away from their own families -- to inspect losses, answer questions, issue payments, support temporary living arrangements, and help customers navigate one of the most severe wildfire events in Cali- fornia history. We recognize that in an event of this scale, a perfect pro- cess is nearly impossible and some customers understandably and un- fortunately experienced some frus- tration. Real progress has been made toward helping people recover and we remain committed to addressing remaining customer concerns.”
an Diego State University agreed to pay $300,000 to settle a Title IX class action alleging female student-ath-
letes received fewer athletic opportu- nities and benefits than male athletes, particularly in scholarship funding. The agreement resolves claims of unequal treatment in the universi- ty’s athletics program but does not
See Page 5 — SAN DIEGO
Mentorship and wilderness leadership helped redirect a struggling student to UCLA law school
Continued from page 1
crisis. During his freshman year at UC Santa Barbara, he suddenly collapsed in his dorm room. He woke up in a hos- pital unable to speak properly and suf- fering from memory loss and mobility issues. Doctors never determined ex- actly what caused the brain injury. “For a while, nothing would stick,” he said. “I’d study and it would go in one ear and out the other.” The experience forced him to re- consider his identity and future. “The things I relied on to get me there — my brain, my body, my work ethic — suddenly felt taken away,” he said. But when he regained conscious- ness, familiar faces from Pyles Camp were there beside him: former coun- selors, mentors and camp staff mem- bers. “That support system mattered,” he said. “It reminded me that even if everything else changes, if you keep going, you can still build a life.” This summer, Trigueros Ramirez will begin building the next chapter of that life at Clyde & Co, where he was selected for a competitive summer associate position after interviewing through UCLA’s on-campus recruit- ment process. Hoffman encouraged him to apply and coached him through the pro- cess, but she said his accomplish- ments earned the opportunity. “He walked in and impressed peo- ple on his own,” she said. Trigueros Ramirez hopes eventu- ally to practice litigation, though he says he is still exploring different ar- eas of law. He also hopes his story highlights the broader impact of Pyles Camp — not just for him, but for many others. In a follow-up message after the in- terview, he pointed to another former camper, Julio Chavez, known at camp as “Matrix,” who once worked in the underground garment industry as a child and is now preparing to apply to law school after graduating from UCLA and completing elite pre-law fellowships. “Our Pyles stories are not unique,
and they’re not accidents,” Trigue- ros Ramirez wrote. “Whether a Pyles brother chooses to become a plumb- er, a landscaper or a lawyer, there is someone willing to guide them.” For Hoffman, those transforma- tions are why she has remained in- volved with the camp for nearly 30 years. “My hope,” she said, “is that more people in the legal community see what programs like this can do.”
“All I saw was, I’m getting all these awards in school and nobody’s show- ing up,” he said. “So, at some point I just decided, ‘What am I doing all this work for anyway?’” His grades collapsed. He began failing classes and acting out. Then came the camp. What began as excitement over horseback riding and archery grad- ually became mentorship, structure and belonging. “The camp actively looks for boys who are at a pivotal point in their lives,” Trigueros Ramirez said. “And it steps in to push them in the right direction.” After attending as a camper, he returned as a counselor while at- tending UC Santa Barbara on a full scholarship. There, during one of his first summers as a counselor, he met Hoffman. Fresh off a grueling backpacking trip, sweaty and exhausted, he told her he hoped to become a lawyer someday. Hoffman did not sugarcoat the pro- fession. “She told me law school is hard and expensive,” he recalled. “But she also said, ‘If you really want to do it, give me a call.’” He did. Over the years, Hoffman became both mentor and guide, helping him navigate a professional world that ini- tially felt foreign. “She was the first lawyer I’d ever met,” Trigueros Ramirez said. “Just learning how to talk to people in that world, how to interview, what’s appro- priate to say — that was huge for me.” Hoffman said his intelligence stood out immediately, but so did his humil- ity. “He’s exceptional,” she said, add- ing that he was accepted to several top law schools and received gener- ous offers. Trigueros Ramirez ultimately chose UCLA law, where he recently completed his second year. His path there, however, was in- terrupted by a devastating medical
news@dailyjournal.com
david_houston@dailyjournal.com
Judge backs defense on deposition sequence in social media dispute
Reprints For PDFs, Frames and
Reprints of articles in The Daily Journal, please contact Jeremy Ellis at: Jeremy@ ReprintPros.com, (949) 702-5390 or online at www. ReprintPros.com
speaking on behalf of all the compa- nies, countered that the protocol ex- pressly governed all treating provider depositions without exceptions for disputed witnesses or trial-preserva- tion testimony. Nolan said the parties had followed the alternating ques- tioning structure for more than 18 months, and that the plaintiff’s coun- sel themselves previously acknowl- edged the defense was designated to question first in R.K.C.’s case. Nolan disputed Jeffcott’s charac- terization that defendants opposed Monroe’s deposition itself. He said the defendants objected to the thera- pist’s late addition to the witness list but requested a deposition once Kuhl allowed the testimony. The judge ultimately indicated she saw “no reason to depart” from the agreed protocol and said the same order of questioning “makes sense” here. She noted the parties had fol- lowed the same structure in prior treating provider depositions, includ- ing during the earlier Kaley G.M. bell- wether proceedings – which resulted in a landmark $6 million verdict against Meta and YouTube in March. Social Media Cases, JCCP5255 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Oct. 24, 2022). The judge said R.K.C.'s counsel would still be able to structure their examination in a way that could lat- er be presented coherently at trial if Monroe does not testify live.
Regarding whether the companies would stipulate to the admissibility of certain medical records connected to Monroe’s testimony, Kuhl encour- aged the defense counsel to quickly clarify the issue with plaintiffs be- cause it could significantly affect how the deposition proceeds, she said. The coordinated cases involve thousands of lawsuits alleging that Meta, Google, Snap Inc. and TikTok intentionally designed addictive plat- form features that harmed children and teenagers. Plaintiffs claim features such as autoplay, infinite scroll, notifications and algorithmic recommendations encourage compulsive use and con- tribute to mental health problems among minors, including suicide. The companies deny those allega- tions and have argued many of the claims are barred by the First Amend- ment and Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, a stat- ute that generally shields online plat- forms from liability related to content uploaded by third-party users. R.K.C.’s case is scheduled for a July 27 trial against all four companies. Snap and TikTok settled the first bellwether plaintiff’s claims days be- fore her trial began in late January and have not yet faced a jury in the litigation.
Continued from page 1
R.K.C., which is scheduled to become the second bellwether trial in the co- ordinated proceeding. Representing R.K.C. at the hear- ing was Emily Jeffcott of Morgan & Morgan, who argued the existing treater-deposition protocol should not apply in this instance because the defendants had fought Monroe’s deposition “tooth and nail.” She said the deposition was proceeding only after Kuhl overruled defense objec- tions at a prior hearing. Jeffcott said allowing the compa- nies to question Monroe first would unfairly permit them to frame the testimony before plaintiffs could use the witness to authenticate and lay foundation for medical records that defendants allegedly would not stipu- late were admissible. “We don’t think that the deposition protocol for health care providers ap- plies,” Jeffcott told Kuhl, adding that plaintiff’s counsel risked spending much of their allotted deposition time responding to defense questioning rather than presenting their own case. “What the protocol expressly did not contemplate, or even address, was the situation that we had here, where defendants objected extensive- ly to the deposition in its entirety,” Jeffcott said. Kirkland & Ellis LLP partner Jack Nolan, appearing for Snapchat and
Los Angeles Daily Journal (ISSN:0362-5575)
Established as a daily newspaper in 1888. Official newspaper of the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles. Published daily except Saturdays, Sundays and New Year’s Day, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Presidents’ Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, the day after Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve and Christmas Day by Daily Journal Corporation. 915 East First Street, Los Angeles, Calif., 90012. (213) 229- 5300. Periodicals postage paid at Los Angeles, California. Adjudicated a newspaper of general circulation, Los Angeles Superior Court No. 59775 and B-33522. Additionally adjudicated on June 5, 1954, in Case No. 599382. SUBSCRIPTION RATES: Monthly On – Line Access $95, 1 Year Digital Edition $399, 1 Year All Access Classic subscription $895 plus applicable sales tax, 1 Year All Access Classic Plus with Bonus features subscription $1,149 plus applicable sales tax. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Los Angeles Daily Journal, P.O. Box 54026, Los Angeles, California 90054-0026. Filings are taken from public records as a convenience for our subscribers and republished without prejudice or liability. The Los Angeles Daily Journal is not responsible for errors and omissions. Under no circumstances will any matter of record be withheld from publication in this paper. This newspaper does not assume responsibility for the views expressed in published correspondence or contributed notes or articles. Material published in the Los Angeles Daily Journal is compiled at substantial expense and is for the sole and exclusive use of subscribers. The material may not be republished, resold, or used in any manner, in whole or in part, without the consent of the publisher. Any infringement will be subject of legal redress.
devon_belcher@dailyjournal.com
LOS ANGELES DAILY JOURNAL
THURSDAY, MAY 14, 2026 • PAGE 3
Zimbabwe EV venture accuses Toyota foundation of trade secret theft
The lawsuit was filed by attorneys David M. Stein and Nancy M. Olson of Olson Stein LLP, along with Brithem attorneys Michael J. Bowe, Lauren Ta- baksblat and Heidi Goldsmith. “Through years of research and field testing, Shantha developed an entire program uniquely suited to the challenging African environment that did not previously exist,” Bowe said in an email Wednesday. “This includ- ed developing the necessary techni- cal specifications for the electronic cargo tricycle and its batteries and other components.” He also cited “a battery swapping system optimized for off-grid envi- ronments, battery charging systems, fleet management and maintenance programs, supplier relationships, and successful community education and integrations programs.” Bloemen’s “only motivation was to improve Afri- can lives,” Bowe added. An email to TMF’s media relations department did not receive a re- sponse by press time Wednesday. MFA claims TMF induced it into a joint venture to gain access to its “first-of-its-kind” rural electric vehi- cle system and field data developed in Zimbabwe. Mobility for Africa v. Toyota Mobility Foundation, 2:26-cv- 05105 (C.D. Cal., filed May 12, 2026). According to the complaint, after obtaining that confidential information, TMF and its consultants abandoned
MFA and launched competing pro- grams. Those allegedly included the “Kisii Smart Community,” which MFA claims replicated key features of its own “Smart Village” program, including three-wheeled cargo vehicles, energy infrastructure and operational systems. MFA also pointed to a for-prof- it venture called “Songa Mobility,” created by consultants for TMF, and alleged it copied the foundational de- signs and operational model of MFA’s Hamba tricycle system. The com- plaint further asserted TMF plagia- rized its branding by using the slogan “mobility built with Africa, for Africa,” which MFA said closely resembled its own phrase, “mobility for Africa and by African communities.” The suit alleges breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and vi- olations of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act. MFA contends the al- leged conduct stripped the company of its “first-mover” advantage and di- verted critical funding opportunities. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, restitution and injunctive relief barring further unauthorized use of its intellectual property. The case was filed in Los Angeles because TMF conducts business in the city and regularly litigates in the Central District of California, accord- ing to the complaint.
By Skyler Romero Daily Journal Staff Writer A Zimbabwean social enter- prise has filed a federal lawsuit in Los Angeles against the Toyota Mo- bility Foundation, alleging the global automotive giant’s philanthropic arm engaged in a fraudulent joint venture to misappropriate proprietary rural electric vehicle technology and field data. The complaint filed Tuesday by attorneys with Olson Stein LLP in Newport Beach and Brithem in New York claimed that after plaintiff Mo- bility for Africa provided the “proof of concept” for a first-of-its-kind e-mobil- ity ecosystem in Zimbabwe, the foun- dation and its consultants abandoned the partnership to launch competing programs. These allegedly included a for-profit venture using MFA’s intel- lectual property. “This is an ugly injustice perpetrat- ed by one of the most powerful com- panies in the world to promote its own ‘good citizenship’ at the expense of a small innovative African compa- ny formed solely for the purpose of helping rural Africans,” the complaint read. MFA and its founder, Shantha Bloemen, “have pleaded with TMF for over a year to remedy this abuse and been ignored, forcing it to com- mence this litigation as a last resort.”
skyler_romero@dailyjournal.com
Microsoft CTO testifies as OpenAI defense rests in Musk lawsuit
By Daniel Schrager Daily Journal Staff Writer A fter hearing the same doz- en or so names through- out trial in Elon Musk’s breach of charitable trust lawsuit against OpenAI, the jury was introduced to a whole new cast of characters Wednesday during a rap- id-fire final day of testimony. First up was Kevin Scott, the Chief Technology Officer of Microsoft, which Musk alleges aided OpenAI’s breach of charitable trust with $13 billion in investments as the company adopted a for-profit model. Scott, questioned by Russell P. Co- hen of Dechert LLP, detailed Micro- soft’s thinking at the time of the deal -- it didn’t want to risk falling behind in AI development and felt it needed to either invest in an existing ven- ture or ramp up its internal efforts significantly. He said the deal gave Microsoft a partner that could help it understand AI developers’ infrastruc- ture needs and develop its supercom- puters accordingly. Scott also sought to explain away an email that ques- tioned whether the OpenAI nonprofit donors would approve of the compa- ny building “a closed for-profit thing on its back.” Scott couldn’t recall the details of the due diligence Microsoft conduct- ed ahead of the deal, but luckily, Mi- crosoft’s next witness was corporate development executive Michael Wet- ter, who helped oversee that process. Wetter testified that OpenAI told Mi- crosoft the deal would not violate the nonprofit’s rights or any commitments to a third party. Microsoft’s extensive due diligence confirmed that, he said. “We understood we were entering into the agreement with the for-profit,” Wetter said, adding that the for-profit’s creation and acquisition of the nonprof- it’s intellectual property took place well
before Microsoft’s investment. Musk v. Altman et al. , 4:24-cv-04722 (N.D. Cal., filed Aug. 5, 2024). Sara Tofighbakhsh of MoloLam- ken LLP, representing Musk, pressed Wetter on the rights to review major decisions OpenAI granted Microsoft as part of the investments. “We had contributed probably 98% of the capital at that time,” Wetter said, before calling it a “basic protec- tion provision” Tofighbakhsh asked if that means Microsoft was granted “effective con- trol” of OpenAI. “We had an approval right on cer- tain transactions,” Wetter said. Microsoft handed the floor back to OpenAI, which crammed four wit- nesses and two deposition video clips into three hours of trial time. “Chief futurist” Joshua Achiam told the jury that, “unquestionably… OpenAI is dedicated to the mission,” before the company called a trio of experts: New York University law professor Daniel Hemel, Harvard law and economics professor John C. Coates and foren- sic accountant Louis Dudney. Hemel and Coates attempted to tear down the report that Musk’s expert, former Columbia Law School dean David Schizer, prepared for the case, which found that OpenAI’s cur- rent structure came at the expense of the nonprofit. “I don’t even really understand it,” Coates said of Schizer’s analysis that the profit caps offered to OpenAI’s early investors were high enough to hurt the nonprofit. The caps, he said, work in the nonprofit’s favor by di- recting the excess profits its way. “Fundamentally, [the OpenAI non- profit] has, in fact, fared well,” Coates said. Regardless of the investments’ structure, Coates said, OpenAI used the infrastructure and money from
Microsoft to expand the company, over 25% of which is owned by the nonprofit. “This very large pie, they have a very large slice of,” Coates said. Hemel said Schizer’s analogy of a museum gift shop taking control of the museum was far off base. Nine- ty-two of the 100 biggest nonprofits in the country have for-profit affil- iates, he said, which are often big- ger than the original nonprofit. “Having for-profit affiliates is very much the norm,” Hemel said. It was “entirely consistent with custom and practice” for OpenAI’s nonprofit to sell its IP to the for-prof- it, he said, as long as the two have the same mission. For the nonprofit to retain three of five board seats, “that would be going beyond cus- tom and practice,” Hemel said. Musk’s attorneys were on strict time limits from U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers and only directed a few questions at the two witnesses -- just enough time to highlight Coates’ role as an expert witness on behalf of Twitter when it sued Musk to enforce the $44 bil- lion merger agreement he’d signed before terminating. Dudney testified briefly that Ope- nAI had spent all of the money from Musk’s donations by November 2017, supporting the company’s ar- gument that Musk’s claims are time- barred, and the defense rested. “All of the pieces of the puzzle are now in the box,” Gonzalez Rogers told the jury. At closing arguments Thursday, the parties will outline what they believe the puzzle will look like when the pieces are as- sembled, she said. Then, she said, the decision will be in the jury’s hands.
daniel_schrager@dailyjournal.com
Los Angeles judge admonished again for misconduct Continued from page 1
an advisory letter — concerning his independent investigation of a traffic ac- cident scene and related disclosure fail- ures — also appears in the record, but an advisory letter is a separate, lesser form of discipline, not an admonishment. At his appearance before the commis- sion, Griego argued that serious health issues and prescribed medications
contributed to his treatment of small claims litigants. The commission noted, however, that when a medical condition contributes to misconduct, judges "are obligated to take time away from their duties until such time as they can once again perform their duties ethically."
Angeles County Bar Association rated him "not qualified." In 2017, the com- mission issued him an advisory letter for improperly investigating the scene of a traffic accident and related conduct, including failing to disqualify himself. This is the second formal admonish- ment, but in 2017, the CJP issued him
douglas_saunders@dailyjournal.com
PAGE 4 • THURSDAY, MAY 14, 2026
LOS ANGELES DAILY JOURNAL
The verdicts that follow trial lawyers home
By Baruch C. Cohen S ome courtroom losses do not merely wound the ego. They wound the conscience. Recently, a veteran trial attorney whom I deeply respect suf- fered a devastating defeat in a major and emotionally charged case involv- ing the police shooting of a 14-year- old girl. In describing the outcome, he called it “the most devastating loss of my career,” adding words that every seasoned trial lawyer immedi- ately understood at a visceral level: “I’ve lost cases and I understand why. I don’t understand this one… It’s non- sensical to me.” That statement captures some- thing the public rarely understands about trial work. What struck me was not merely the loss itself, but the uncommon candor, dignity, focus, and emotional resilience required for a veteran trial lawyer to confront devastating defeat without bitterness, excuses, self- pity or retreat. In a profession built around winning, there is something profoundly honorable about lawyers who can absorb heartbreaking loss honestly, stand upright inside the pain and still return to battle. Sometimes character is revealed more clearly in defeat than victory ever could be. There are verdicts a trial lawyer can accept, even in defeat—cases where the facts were difficult, the law unfavorable or the evidence im- perfect. Those losses hurt, but they still fit within the rational framework of litigation. And then there are verdicts that shatter that framework entirely—cas- es where experienced trial lawyers walk out of the courtroom unable to reconcile the outcome with the evi- dence they lived, the humanity they witnessed or the justice they believed the case demanded. Those are the losses that do not end when the jury is discharged. They fol- low the lawyer home. They linger in silence. They replay themselves long after the courthouse lights go dark. Some verdicts leave the court- room. Others move in permanently. The public sees the verdict, but the trial lawyer lives with what comes af- terward. They see headlines, cameras, sketches, reactions, celebration or criticism. What they do not see is the solitude that follows—the lawyer sit- ting alone replaying rulings, cross-ex- aminations, juror expressions, and
not align. Sometimes courage itself is the only victory. There are cases where standing beside a client to the end is itself an act of honor. What separates elite trial lawyers is resilience. After loss, the easier path would be retreat—safer cases, smaller risks, emotional detachment. But great trial lawyers do the opposite. They return to the arena, fully aware of how much it can hurt. That willingness is one of the most underappreciated forms of courage in the profession. Legacy is not defined solely by ver- dicts. It is defined by who took the hard cases, who stood against pow- erful institutions, who carried clients’ pain and who fought when defeat was possible or likely. History is shaped not only by those who win, but by those brave enough to fight. Trial lawyers are often seen as emo- tionally invulnerable. The truth is the opposite. The lawyers who move ju- ries most deeply are often those who feel pain most deeply themselves. Empathy is not weakness in trial work. It is fuel. It is what allows a lawyer to speak authentically about suffering, injus- tice, grief and dignity. And that is why losses cut so deep- ly. Because trial lawyers who truly care never leave the courtroom un- touched. Some verdicts may wound them for years. Yet despite the scars, they con- tinue returning to the arena. And perhaps that willingness to continue after devastating defeat is one of the purest forms of courage the profession will ever know. The public remembers verdicts. Trial lawyers remember faces.
This art was created with the assistance of Shutterstock AI tools
To stand before a jury and ask strangers to care about suffering re- quires the lawyer to care deeply first. Jurors detect insincerity instantly. So the most powerful trial lawyers do something dangerous: they expose themselves emotionally. They internalize the client’s grief, injustice, trauma and fear until the outcome becomes personally mean- ingful. That emotional exposure cre- ates vulnerability. When the verdict comes back wrong—especially in cases involving death, injustice or institutional fail- ure—the lawyer does not experience it only professionally. He experiences it personally, sometimes even spiritu- ally. The hardest losses are not about money or prestige. They are cas- es where the lawyer truly believed justice required a different result— where he believed the evidence, truth and humanity of the client would prevail. When that does not happen, some- thing inside the lawyer fractures tem-
strategic decisions, searching for the moment that might have altered ev- erything. They do not see the lawyer awake at three in the morning wondering whether one different phrase, one witness order, one objection, or one more minute of argument might have changed another family’s life forever. Nor do they see the emotional bur- den of trial lawyers who take morally charged, emotionally radioactive cas- es and place their hearts, reputations and clients’ hopes into the hands of twelve strangers. Because trial lawyers do not mere- ly litigate cases. The great ones ab- sorb them. Unlike actors, they do not perform with fictional consequences. Real lives collapse on the other side of the verdict. The case ends on the verdict form. For the lawyer, it often continues for years in the mind. There is something uniquely bru- tal about trial work. Most professions allow emotional distance. Trial work does not.
forward scar tissue that becomes part of their advocacy. That is why trial lawyers speak about losses with such gravity. Because defeat is not incidental to trial work—it is part of its emotional DNA. And yet, despite the scars, they continue returning to battle. Not be- cause they are fearless, but because they still believe the next jury may listen, the next courtroom may care and the next client deserves some- one willing to fight. One of the loneliest moments in law occurs after a devastating verdict. The courtroom empties. The jurors leave. The judge moves on. The pub- lic stops watching. But the lawyer remains, long after everyone else has gone. He replays everything, search- ing endlessly for what might have changed the outcome. But eventually, most lawyers learn a painful truth: sometimes you can perform brilliantly and still lose. Sometimes justice and verdicts do
porarily. Not ego, but empathy. The lawyer feels the client’s devastation as partially his own responsibility. That is the hidden burden of great trial lawyers. They carry losses dif- ferently because they carry people differently. Every devastating verdict leaves a scar, yet the great ones still walk back into the arena. What separates great trial lawyers is not just skill or intellect. It is their willingness to endure emotional dev- astation repeatedly without becoming hardened. They carry ghosts—verdicts that replay years later, questions they still ask themselves, moments of closing argument they wish they could redo, clients they cannot forget. These loss- es never fully disappear. The public assumes lawyers move on. They do not. Great trial lawyers never fully leave certain courtrooms. Parts of them re- main there forever. They dissect the loss, interrogate themselves, learn from it and carry
Baruch C. Cohen is an attorney at the Law Office of Baruch C. Cohen APLC.
The crisis of incivility requires immediate judicial attention
clerks and courtroom staff already op- erate at maximum capacity. Discovery disputes arrive in relentless waves, and emergency motions compete with criminal calendars, trials, dispositive motions and settlement conferences. California’s federal courts continue to experience some of the heaviest caseload pressures in the nation. Va- cancies have often remained unfilled for extended periods. Senior judges shoulder enormous burdens long after many would have retired completely. Meanwhile, discovery itself has be- come exponentially more expensive and contentious in the digital age. Massive electronically stored in- formation productions, metadata disputes, privilege fights, artificial intelligence review issues and co- ordinated MDL discovery have transformed what were once rela- tively manageable disagreements into sprawling satellite litigation. Against that backdrop, civility dis- putes are often viewed as second- ary matters that can wait. But none of those realities alter a central truth: when courts do not promptly confront litigation mis- conduct, the misconduct spreads. Bad actors carefully observe in- stitutional incentives. They know when a judge has no time to deal with discovery abuse. They know when chambers will push hearings months into the future. They know when sanctions motions are likely to die quietly. And they adjust their behavior accordingly. Unfortunately, professionalism codes and bar civility guidelines alone are insufficient. Lawyers inclined toward abusive conduct
months, or even a year, to be heard, if civility complaints disappear into already overburdened chambers, and if courts understandably prioritize dispositive motions and trial sched- ules, then the bad actor often wins by attrition. The result is predictable. Incivility metastasizes. The federal judiciary has long recognized that civility is not merely aspirational etiquette. It is essential to the fair administration of justice. Discovery cannot function if lawyers weaponize intimidation, harassment or obstruction. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contemplate cooperation, proportionality and professionalism. Yet many litigators now treat discovery as trench warfare precisely because meaningful consequences are so infre- quent and so delayed. The events before Senior District Judge Breyer illustrate why swift judi- cial engagement matters. Importantly, Judge Breyer accomplished this while serving on senior status and simultane- ously carrying one of the nation’s most demanding MDL dockets. The Uber litigation alone involves extraordinari- ly complicated issues, voluminous discovery and massive coordination challenges. Yet the court recognized something many judges privately ac- knowledge but cannot always opera- tionalize: Incivility itself threatens the administration of justice and therefore must be treated as an urgent matter, not a peripheral annoyance. Most federal judges understand this instinctively. The problem is structural, not personal. District and bankruptcy courts are overwhelmed. Magistrate judges face very tough calendars. Law
are rarely deterred by aspirational statements. They are deterred by immediate consequences. That is why swift judicial in- tervention is so critical. Speed changes incentives. When lawyers understand that discovery abuse may trigger an immediate hearing, expedited sanctions consideration, public rebuke, exclusion from pro- ceedings or referral to disciplinary authorities, behavior changes quickly. The overwhelming major- ity of attorneys, who already prac- tice professionally, benefit from that environment as much as judges and litigants do. Young lawyers notice this dynamic as well. New attorneys learn profes- sional norms not from civility codes framed on law office walls, but from observing what conduct courts ac- tually tolerate. If abusive behavior consistently produces strategic ad- vantage without meaningful conse- quence, the profession gradually in- ternalizes that lesson. This is especially true in multi- district litigation, where discovery disputes can influence thousands of claims and billions of dollars in ex- posure. MDLs create immense pres- sure on all participants. Without ac- tive judicial management of attorney behavior, the risk of systemic deteri- oration becomes substantial. None of this suggests that every heated exchange warrants sanctions or judicial intervention. Litigation is adversarial by nature. Lawyers are expected to advocate forcefully. But there is a profound difference be- tween zealous advocacy and conduct that undermines the integrity of the
process itself. The legal profession now confronts a genuine civility crisis. Nearly every experienced litigator can recount dis- covery conferences devolving into personal attacks, abusive deposition conduct, performative hostility or gamesmanship designed solely to increase cost and delay. Many judges see it repeatedly. Too often, however, the judicial system lacks the band- width to respond in real time. That must change. The federal courts cannot elimi- nate incivility entirely. But they can alter the incentives that sustain it. Prompt attention to misconduct, even in isolated cases, sends a message far beyond the individual dispute. It signals that professionalism remains indispensable to the rule of law. The crisis of incivility will not abate unless courts place these matters on the front burner. When judges act swiftly, the entire system benefits. Scott C. Clarkson is a judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California.
This art was created with the assistance of Shutterstock AI tools
scientious judges are often unable to immediately address attorney mis- conduct and incivility when it arises. That reality is understandable. But it is also dangerous. The modern discovery process increasingly rewards aggression un- tethered from professionalism. Too many lawyers now operate under the assumption that there will be lit- tle or no immediate consequences for abusive behavior during meet- and-confers, depositions, electronic discovery disputes or motion prac- tice. Delay itself becomes part of the strategy. If sanctions motions take
Continued from page 1
pleas from courts during bar associ- ation meetings and newsletters will suffice when the attorneys believe that judges are incapable or unwilling to act. Federal judges today preside over dockets of astonishing size and complexity. District and Bankrupt- cy Courts, particularly in California, confront crushing caseloads, chronic staffing shortages, expanding litiga- tion and discovery disputes that can consume hundreds of attorney hours before ever reaching a courtroom. In that environment, even the most con-
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator