Although Spoliation and Motion To Compel Issues Were Inextricably Intertwined, Motion To Compel Ruling Supported The Sanctions Award Where The Claimed Expenses Were Not Allocated To Any Specific Relief.
In Glickman v. Newmeyer & Dillion LLP, Case No. G065111 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 13, 2026) (unpublished), our local Santa Ana Court, in a 3-0 opinion authored by Acting Presiding Justice Delaney, considered the propriety of lower court order endorsing the recommendation of a discovery referee for purposes of awarding a $16,000 monetary sanctions for spoliation of evidence (also approving an issues sanction) and for compelling further discovery responses by appellant law firm. The order was affirmed.
Initially, the appellate court had to decide the scope of the appeal. It determined that the two discovery orders were inextricably intertwined, in line with its prior reasoning in Deak v. Developers Investment Co., Inc., 89 Cal.App.5th 808, 826-827 (2023). (See also Mileikowsky v. West Hills Hospital & Medical Center, 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 276, 280 (2009), disapproved on another ground in 45 Cal.4th 1259, 1273 (2009).)
With the scope of the appeal delineated, the appellate court found that the spoliation order was infirm. However, the further response compel order was properly granted, which supported the $16,000 in monetary sanctions because respondent did not allocate any claimed fees to any specific relief requested. “[Law firm] cites no legal authority for striking monetary sanctions in their entirety merely because one of the grounds for imposing sanctions is erroneous, and we are aware of no such legal authority.” (Slip Opn., p. 22.)