60-Day Deadline To Compel Runs From Proper Service Of The Subpoena, No Separate Statement Absolutely Required If Motion Provides A Road Map, And Post-Motion Meet And Confer Discovery Efforts Are Not Compensable As A Cost In Bringing A Motion To Compel. Marriage of Moore, Case No. A165038 (1st Dist., Div. 4 May 21, 2024) […]
No Authority Shown To Conclude Otherwise, With Routine Costs And Actual Discovery Sanctions Serving Distinct Purposes. In BBBB Bonding Corp. v. Pilling-Miller, Case Nos. H050703 et al. (6th Dist. May 10, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiff lost trade secret misappropriation and related claims, with costs of $34,989 out of a requested $44,989 awarded to the prevailing
Substitution Out Prior To Discovery Hearing Did Not Preclude The Sanctions Award, With Appealing Attorney Chided For Incivility. Sometimes attorneys just need to “take their lumps” for discovery abuse, whether inspired by the client, counsel, or both to some degree. Masimo Corp. v. The Vanderpool Law Firm, Inc., Case No. G061829 (4th Dist., Div.
General Discovery Statutes Did Not Justify The Reversed Result, And The Absence Of An Order Did Not Support Sanctions Under CCP § 1987.2. Although discovery sanctions are generally affirmed under an abuse of discretion standard, that is not always the case against third parties because different standards apply. Agnone v. Agnone, Case
The Justification Was For A Failure To Meet And Confer Prior To Filing Motions To Compel. This next case, Nguyen v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. B321033 (2d Dist., Div. 5 July 31, 2023) (unpublished), is a lesson for all litigators to meaningfully engage in meet and confer requirements before filing a discovery
Discovery Sanctions Were Vacated, With Litigant Also Substantially Complying With Document Production Requirements. Plaintiff and his counsel were sanctioned $910 for misusing the discovery process, in Pollock v. Superior Court (Schuster), Case No. B321229 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 31, 2023) (published), because plaintiff failed to specify what documents were being produced in the
Discovery Sanctions Was An Independent Monetary Judgment Subject to Post-Judgment Enforcement. In Marriage of Bush, Case No. G061202 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 15, 2023) (unpublished), a family law judge issued $3,635 in discovery sanctions against wife, but the judge stayed any payment until a trial determined who owed what. However, the monetary sanction
CCP § 2023.030 Allowed For The Award, With Willful Discovery Defiance Found By The Lower Court. A party’s failure to comply with discovery orders can have harsh consequences: monetary sanctions; issue sanctions; and sometimes even dismissal or directives to enter a default judgment. Ex-husband found that out in Marriage of Foulk, Case No. C094350
$37,575 Monetary Sanctions Against Defendants For Discovery Noncompliance Affirmed, Given Defense Conduct. Bad facts can lead to published decisions which are not complementary to a party not conducting itself appropriately in litigation. Defendants in Deck v. Developers Investment Co., Case No. G061287 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 24, 2023) (published) learned that sad reality.
Nothing In The Statute Shows That Sanctions Are Allowable Against Client’s Attorney. Castillo v. McCreary, Case No. B317493 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 21, 2023) (unpublished) is an interesting unpublished decision on an appealability issue and on whether discovery sanctions can be visited on a client’s attorney for his client’s failure to appear for
