$12,500 Was The Sanctions Tab Against A Third-Party Law Firm; $11,517.50 Was The Sanctions Award Against Another Third Party. We have related sanctions awards to third parties for subpoenas issued by an employee in both Crider v. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Case No. B342274 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 29, 2026) (unpublished) and Crider […]
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 In Glickman v. Newmeyer & Dillion LLP, Case No. G065111 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 13, 2026) (unpublished), our local Santa Ana Court, in a 3-0
Substantial Evidence Supported The Result, Not To Mention A $35,000 Reduction In Requested Fees Showed No Arbitrary Result. Discovery disputes are contentious, and lower courts have a hard time on them based on the numerous issues that may be involved. However, they have no problems sanctioning for a failure to meet and confer. And that
Various Challenges, Including Fee Substantiation Challenges, Rejected On Appeal. In Malinowski v. Martin, Case No. A167576 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 4, 2025) (unpublished), the appellate court affirmed a $25,000 discovery sanctions award in favor of ex-husband, who predominantly won by having not to respond to about 90% of ex-wife’s discovery requests. Her principal challenges
However, The Appellate Court Reduces Fees A Bit For Fees On Fees Work By A Higher Billing Attorney And Cautions That The Real Rate Report Has To Be Used With Precision. In Baer v. Tedder, Case Nos. G063642 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 10, 2025) (published), the appellate court held that appellate fees
Appellant’s Counsel Assessed With Frivolous Appeal Sanctions Of $30,000 Morales v. City and County of San Francisco, Case No. A170154 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 4, 2025) (published) highlights a lesson for all practitioners: sometimes it is better not to appeal non-appealable orders and not to challenge discovery rulings, which are by and large discretionary
Record Below Showed The Lower Court Pulled The Trigger Too Fast. Tragni v. Tragni, Case No. A169130 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 12, 2025) (unpublished) is one of those rare cases where a needs-based family law award to an ex-wife was reversed for an abuse of discretion. We now explore why. Ex-wife received
Sanctions Fell Within “Unusual Forms Of Discovery Dispute” Situations Encompassed In PricewaterhouseCoopers Decision. In City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 17 Cal.5th 46, 72-74 (2024), the California Supreme Court determined that the inherent authority of the court could allow for imposition of discovery sanctions, independent of express Discovery Act provisions, where there were
CCP §§ 2024.020, 2024.050 Were Not Complied With, And That Was Prejudicial. In Cooke v. Tayac, Case No. A170044 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 12, 2024) (unpublished), defendants moved for discovery sanctions after the discovery cut-off and formal close of discovery. The lower court granted the defense motion for sanctions in the amount of
Nothing In The Discovery Sanctions Or Other Law Mandates That Result. A cross-complainant in Bogota Corp. v. Seiden, Case No. B332296 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 22, 2024) (unpublished) had discovery sanctions imposed for deficient special interrogatory responses after filing no written opposition to the discovery sanctions motion. On appeal, he argued that he
