Cases: Discovery

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

Fifth District Affirms Most Respects Of A FEHA Attorney Fee Remand Proceeding, But Does Not Award Plaintiffs Payment At The Top Permissible Rate For All Hours Claimed By The Attorneys

Cases: Billing Record Substantiation, Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Discovery, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

Court of Appeal Sustains Reductions by Trial Court and Suggests That Fees Expended by the Opposition Has Probative Value in Fee Proceedings.             In Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State University (Horsford I), 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 402 (2005), the Fifth District Court of Appeal determined a trial court had applied

Sixth District Demonstrates Application Of Abuse of Discretion Standard … But Also Speaks Out On Whether Opposition’s Fees Are Probative In Fee Proceedings

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Standard of Review

Court of Appeal Sustains Lower Court Determination That Opposition Fee Effort Does Not Have To Be Considered.             Plaintiff and defendants settled a Home Equity Sales Contract Act case that crops up frequently in this age of subprime lender fallout cases.  A settlement was reached by which the trial court was imbued

E-Discovery: California State And Federal Courts Will Award Attorney’s Fees As Sanctions For Hiding or Obstructing Electronic Document Discovery

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Lombardo and Qualcomm Typlify Cases Sustaining Substantial Fee Awards in E-Discovery Disputes.             About a year ago, LiveOffice, an on-demand messaging security provider, released these fascinating findings based on a nationwide survey: ·         53% of 400 IT managers and consumers admitted that they were not in position to meet federal

Discovery Referee Orders–They Can’t Be Issued Ex Parte and Cannot Order Litigant to Pay Referee Fees/Costs in Absence of Noticed Motion

Cases: Discovery

Fourth District, Division Three Issues Mandate to Reverse Contrary Ex Parte Order.             The Fourth District, Division Three, in Clayton v. Superior Court, Case No. G040482 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 27, 2008) (unpublished “by the court” decision), issued a writ of mandate overturning an ex parte order appointing a discovery referee

CAN A PARTY SEEKING AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES OBTAIN DISCOVERY OF ITS OPPONENT’S FEES IN ORDER TO REBUT A REASONABLENESS CHALLENGE?

Cases: Discovery

We Survey the Decisions; They Leave Plenty Room for Advocacy On Each Side of the Debate.         One of the most frequent challenges to fee petitions is reasonableness—the fees being sought were too large, involved attorneys assessing unduly high hourly rates, or were riddled by excessive and duplicative charges. Although we believe it

Scroll to Top