Level of Culpability and Prejudice Are Still Key Factors Driving Sanctions Awards. Just as we are giving you our top 20 attorney’s fees decisional redux for 2010, Williams Mullen, a 300-attorney firm with offices in Virginia, North Carolina, D.C. and London, has posted a December 17, 2010 Alert that provides a nice summary of […]
Third District Finds Substantial Justification for Sanctioned Parties’ Position, Many of Which Involved Attorney-Client Privilege Concerns. Although involving a convoluted set of facts for which we will only give you the “Reader’s Digest” version, Truckee Carson Irrig. Dist. v. Sierra Pacific Power Co., Case No. C061004 (3d Dist. Nov. 9, 2010) (unpublished) does
Court of Appeal Did Not Condone Keeping OSC Contempt Hearing On Calendar With No Intent to Proceed. The next one is an object lesson, likely reinforcing that sanctions can follow from not showing professional courtesy–at the least. In Marriage of Booth, Case No. A127140 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 4, 2010) (unpublished), wife’s
Second District, Division 3 Finds No Prior Predicate Discovery Order to Underpin Large Sanctions Award. This one is a whopper of a reversal . . . demonstrating that appellate courts will insist that large sanctions awards for discovery abuses be based strictly on predicate rulings required under the Discovery Act. Callan v. CRC
Fourth District, Division 3 Reminds Us That Prior Motion to Compel Is No Precondition to Sanctions Request. This next case is not so much remarkable for the result, but for reminders on what should be done by litigators when responding to discovery requests. In Mallard v. Progressive Choice Ins. Co. (Kent), Case No.
Federal Magistrate Judge Issues Such An Order, Finding It To Be Within the Ambit of Civil Contempt Discovery Sanctions. Here is a very interesting e-discovery sanctions order fashioned by a federal magistrate who did more than enter a default judgment as to a liability on a copyright infringement count against corporate defendant and its
Fourth District, Division 2 Finds Substantial Justification for Motion to Quash Subpoenas Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2 provides for an award of reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees to a party making or opposing a motion to quash a subpoena if his/her actions were made in bad faith or undertaken without substantial justification. Usually,
Second District, Division 8 Believes Attorney Was Blameless Under the Circumstances. In Scarola v. Dedicated Talent Agency (Pettigrew), Case No. B220482 (2d Dist., Div. 8 August 13, 2010) (unpublished), attorney for an apparently uncooperative cross-complainant was sanctioned $2,500 after her client failed to appear for a deposition in New York (even though defense counsel
But First District, Div. 5 Rules That Sanctions For Expenses Incurred Cannot Include Expenses of Taking Another Deposition. In a proposed class action, defendant deposed one of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff’s counsel, J. David Franklin, wrote on a legal pad and showed it to his client, the deponent. Counsel also instructed the deponent not to
In our February 27, 2010 post, we provided some highlights from The Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, which was amended some in a January 15, 2010 order. This decision can now be found at 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4546 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010). Pension
