Cases: Discovery

Appealability, Discovery: Discovery Sanctions Against Client’s Attorney For Client’s Failure To Appear At A Deposition Reversed

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Discovery

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             Castillo v. McCreary, Case No. B317493 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 21, 2023) (unpublished) is an interesting unpublished decision on an appealability issue and on whether discovery sanctions can be visited on a client’s attorney for his client’s failure to appear for […]

Discovery, Sanctions: 2/5 DCA Concludes $2.5 Million In Monetary Sanctions Awarded For Egregious Discovery Abuse, Under Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010 and 2023.030, Was Not Statutorily Authorized And Reverses

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Citing Legal Precedent, Dissenting Justice Would Have Affirmed – Seeing No Basis For “The Majority’s Unprecedented Statutory Analysis.”             Nine months after plaintiff dismissed with prejudice its case in City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC, Case No. B310118 (2d Dist., Div. 5 October 20, 2022) (published), PricewaterhouseCoopers (“PWC”) moved for monetary sanctions pursuant to

Appealability, Discovery: Plaintiff “Internet Troll” In California Discovery Litigation, Whose Motion To Quash Was Dismissed, Was Not Entitled To Attorney Fees Under CCP § 1987.2(c)

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Discovery

Appellate Court Also Rebukes Parties And Attorneys Whose Main Quest Is To Recoup Fees After A Defeat.             Here is how Doe v. McLaughlin, Case No. A161534 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 21, 2022) (published) began:             “Forty-four years ago our Supreme Court admonished that ‘The purpose of litigation is to resolve participants’ disputes,

Discovery: Defendant And Its Chicago Law Firm Ordered To Split Special Master Discovery Expenses For Failure To Preserve Text Messages And Misconduct Of Counsel During The Discovery Process

Cases: Discovery

“This was a large, important case for both parties.  The parties were entitled to zealous activity from their outside counsel and from their inside corporate attorneys.  However, zealous advocacy does not justify abusive conduct or hiding the ball.”             That was the conclusion of Senior U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson in ORP Surgical, LLP

Discovery, Judgment Enforcement: Peripheral Objector’s Unsuccessful Opposition to Motions To Compel Compliance To Judgment Enforcement Third Party Subpoenas Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Judgment Enforcement

Sanctions Order Was Only $6,750, Although Losing Objector Is Now Liable For Substantially More In Appellate Fees.             This next case, Vision en Analisis y Estrategia v. Erwin Legal, Case No. G059669 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 17, 2022) (unpublished), demonstrates that sometimes a losing party/objector should take minor bumps rather than pursue an appeal

Discovery, Sanctions: No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s Order Issuing $6,150 In Sanctions Against Defendant For Failure To Timely Respond To Two Sets Of Discovery Requests Served By Email.

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Defendant Did Not Claim Email Service Was Improper Or That Discovery Requests Had Not Been Received, And Did Not Demonstrate That It Acted With Substantial Justification Or That The Sanctions Were Unjust Or Unreasonable.             Personal injury defendant appealed the trial court’s order issuing $6,150 in sanctions against it – $3,075 each for defendant’s failure

Discovery, Sanctions: 1/3 DCA Affirms $7,550 Sanctions Award Against Defendant And Her Attorney

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Unpublished Opinion Has Good Discussion Of Discovery Sanctions Burdens And Need To Reasonably Engage In Meet And Confer Discovery Sessions.              Price-Simms, LLC v. Gallegos (Fry), Case No. A160893 (1st Dist. Div. 1 Oct. 6, 2021) (unpublished) is a situation where the appellate court affirmed a $7,550 discovery sanctions against defendant and her attorney (the

Discovery, Sanctions: Third District Reverses Deposition Discovery Sanctions Against Attorney Because Deposition Suspension Requirements Did Not Entail A Reasonableness Requirement

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

But Unique Facts, So Do Not Think You Can Suspend Without Repercussions.             Because we have to report on cases as we come upon them, we will say that Mason v. YD Window, Inc., Case No. C091415 (3d Dist. Oct. 5, 2021) (unpublished) is a little hard to decipher, but we will try.  In essence,

Appeal Sanctions, Discovery, Sanctions: Fifth District Denies Defendants’ Writ Petition Challenging The Trial Court’s Order To Produce Discovery Responses And Pay $13,680 In Sanctions.

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Defendants’ Filing Of The Writ Petition Was Wholly Without Merit And, Under The Standards Set Forth In Flaherty, Was Frivolous And Filed Solely To Cause Delay – Warranting $6,965.00 In Sanctions Pursuant To California Rules of Court, Rule 8.492.             After defendants failed to provide discovery responses for over three years, the trial court granted

Discovery, Sanctions: No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s Imposition Of $12,250 In Sanctions Against Plaintiff For Abuse Of The Discovery Process.

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Plaintiff Was Not Substantially Justified In Initially Providing Objection-Only Responses And Failed To Meet His Burden In Showing An Abuse Of Discretion In The Trial Court’s Finding That Defendants’ Sufficiently Engaged In Meet And Confer Efforts.             In Kramer v. Dale, Case No. D077610 (4th Dist., Div. 1 September 24, 2021) (unpublished), the 4/1 DCA

Scroll to Top