Cases: Discovery

E-Discovery: Outside Law Firm and One Of Its Partners Stung By Fees And Expenses For Not Producing Native Formatted Database

Cases: Discovery

U.S. Magistrate Finds No Substantial Justification For Not Producing Materials As Called For in Defense Discovery Requests.      In our post of July 30, 2008, we reported on the Qualcomm decision, where substantial discovery sanctions were imposed upon attorneys for e-discovery disputes that were not discovered until during the course of trial. The next case […]

Appeal Sanctions: Attorney Losing Discovery Sanctions Is Also Hit With Appellate Sanctions Of $23,343,75

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Discovery

Second District, Division 8 Gives a “Double Whammy.”      In line with suggestions we have made in prior posts, appellate practice in California is a specialty. Do not get involved and do not lightly appeal abuse of discretion rulings unless you consult an appellate specialist or have practiced before the California appellate courts. The next

Discovery Sanctions: Court Of Appeal Sustains $29,180 Discovery Sanctions Fee Award

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

Fourth District, Division 2 Finds Winning Litigant Properly Allocated Fees.      In Bohl v. Pryke, Case No. E045405 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 1, 2009) (unpublished), a defendant in a “reporter’s shield law” case refused to reveal sources. However, he also apparently refused to answer legitimate discovery, drawing the lower court’s ire. The trial court

Terminating Sanctions And Substantial Default Judgment Reversed Because Of Failure To Show Willfulness

Cases: Discovery, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Sanctions

Sixth District Vacates $730,466.10 Default Judgment and Reinstates Defendant’s Answer.      The next case is a good example of the POOF! principle. Plaintiff obtained a $730,466.10 default judgment against defendant, set up by the trial court’s grant of terminating sanctions for failure to respond to discovery requests. The only problem is that the record did

Sanctions: Court of Appeal Vacates Discovery Sanctions Against Defendant With Respect To Form Interrogatory Responses

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Second District, Division 3 Calls Into Question Whether Defense Needs to Answer Some Personal Injury Questions in Many Cases.      Discovery is the bane of most litigators’ existence. It is freely allowed (subject to certain limitations)—vacillating from tedious and time consuming (at one pole) to burdensome and extremely expensive (at the other side of the

Discovery Sanctions: $6,000 In Discovery Sanctions Affirmed Against Alter Ego Defendant For Failing To Respond To Written Discovery

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

Second District, Division Two Discusses Aggregation Appealability Rule and Litigant’s Discovery Obligations.      The next case we discuss has an interesting discussion of the aggregation appealability rule (sanctions order must exceed $5,000) and a litigant’s discovery obligations (even an alter ego defendant must provide discovery information of which he is aware, even if the defendant

Sanctions: Evidence and Adverse Jury Instruction Sanctions Not Allowed For Document Production Transgression Absent Failure To Obey An Order Compelling A Further Response

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Second District, Division Three Decides Sanctions Unwarranted Because The Underlying Conduct Was Not Egregious in Nature.      In New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (Shanahan), Case No. B207661 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 10, 2008) (certified for publication), the Court of Appeal—in a 3-0 opinion authored by Presiding Justice Croskey—issued mandate to allow withdrawal and

Discovery Sanctions: Litigant Not Awarded Additional Sanctions Where Request Was Only Contained At The Conclusion of the Supporting Memorandum

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

  Second District, Division One Finds No Abuse of Discretion In Denying Further Sanctions.      In our October 14, 2008 post, we reviewed The Capital Gold Group v. Michael Thomas Media Group, a Second District, Division 5 decisions reversing a sanctions award because the notice of motion for sanctions failed to identify the object of

Discovery Sanctions Orders Against Counsel Reversed Because Notices Of Sanctions Motions Were Not Sufficiently Certain In Identifying The Objects Of The Sanctions Requests

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Second District, Division Five Reverses Discovery Sanctions Imposed Against Client and Its Law Firm.      The next case is a good reminder that discovery sanctions motions need to be explicit in mentioning the persons against whom the sanctions are directed in the actual motion. Failure to be precise in this context may mean that an

Scroll to Top