Cases: Discovery

Discovery/Requests For Admissions/Sanctions: Second District Court Of Appeal Affirms Sanctions Denials On Issues Litigators Encounter With Frequency

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Sanctions

  Discovery, Mediation, and RFA Sanctions Denied.      Hi, folks. Although we are in the Holidays (busy at that), we do like to report on decisions that have issues of recurring interest to California litigators. The next one should be a case that peaks such an interest and provides resonant lessons to us all — […]

Discovery/Sanctions: Acacia Research Subsidiary Optimum Processing Solutions, L.L.C. Facing F.R.Civ. P. 37 Fees And Expenses From Atlanta Federal Court Discovery Dispute

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

  Oops      In Optimum Processing Solutions, L.L.C. v. Intel Corp., Civ. No. 1:09-cv-1098-TCB (N.D. Ga.) [Doc. 271 filed Sept. 14, 2012), District Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. has decided that Acacia Research subsidiary Optimum Processing Solutions, L.L.C. (OPS) will have to pay fees and expenses under F.R.Civ. P. 37 for Intel’s motion to compel

Discovery/Sanctions: Ninth Circuit Reverses $28,181.10 Sanctions Order Under F.R.Civ.P. Rule 45(c)(1)

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Cost Of Complying With Subpoena By Third Party Was Minimal And Subpoena Was Not Issued In Bad Faith Or Was Not Facially Defective      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(1) allows a district judge issuing a subpoena to award appropriate sanctions, including lost earnings and reasonable attorney’s fees, against a party or attorney responsible for

Discovery: $105,492.25 In Discovery Sanctions Against Defendant And Its Attorney Sustained For Evasive Responses And Inordinate Meet And Confer Broken Promises

Cases: Discovery

  Trial Court Has Some Interesting Discussion of Trees Along the Way.      DK Art Publishing, Inc. v. City Art, Inc., Case No. B229122 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 11, 2012) (unpublished) is a sober reminder that game playing in discovery proceedings can result in serious sanctions that will indeed be affirmed upon review by

Appealability/Discovery: Losing Plaintiff Filing Chapter 7 And Not Disclosing Lawsuit In Bankruptcy Lacks Standing To Appeal

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Discovery

  Appeal Dismissed Because Unscheduled Property Cannot Be Abandoned at Close of Bankruptcy Proceeding.      Lamas v. Infinity Ins. Co., Case No. B233042 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 23, 2012) (unpublished; 3-0 decision authored by Justice Johnson) is a situation where plaintiff appealed some discovery sanctions even though she had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy

Discovery/Sanctions: Diepenbrock Decision Is Now Published

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

  Reversal of Sanctions Award Now Published, Showing Unsettled Law on Scope of Marital Privilege.      In our July 31, 2012 post, we examined Diepenbrock v. Brown, a First District, Division 3 unpublished decision reversing a protective order sanctions award based upon an unsettled marital privilege issue. We can now report that the opinion was

Discovery/Sanctions: $5,000 Sanctions For Unsuccessfully Opposing A Protective Order On Marital Privilege Issue Reversed

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

  Substantial Justification for Opposition Given Unsettled Law on Scope of Marital Privilege.      Plaintiff and her attorney were sanctioned $5,000 for unsuccessfully opposing a protective order motion brought by a third-party attempting to protect certain information from discovery under the marital privilege. The trial court thought the law clear on the issue and sanctioned

Sanctions/E-Discovery/Substantiation Of Fees: New York Federal Magistrate Clarifies That FRCP 37 Fee Recovery Can Be Had For Attorney Rates From Outside The Case Venue Area

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Magistrate Also Discounts 10% Across the Board for “Block Billing.”      Ceglia v. Zuckerberg, 2012 WL 503810 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2012) is a federal opinion from outside California that caught our eye for its departure from the so-called “forum rule”–reasonable attorney’s fees in the fee-shifting area are usually based on the work for comparable

Discovery/Referee Costs: Attorney Cannot Be Ordered To Pay Discovery Referee Costs Unless Discovery Abuse Procedures Followed

Cases: Costs, Cases: Discovery

  Referee Cost Shifting Provisions Does Not Mention Counsel Involvement.      Lupien v. Vons Market, Case No. B228896 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 6, 2011) (unpublished) involved a situation where plaintiff’s counsel was held jointly and severally liable along with their client for one half of a discovery referee’s costs totaling $7,800. Plaintiff appealed, arguing

Scroll to Top