Unpublished Opinion Has Good Discussion Of Discovery Sanctions Burdens And Need To Reasonably Engage In Meet And Confer Discovery Sessions.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 Div. 1 Oct. 6, 2021) (unpublished) is a situation where the appellate court affirmed a $7,550 discovery sanctions against defendant and her attorney (the […]
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 Oct. 5, 2021) (unpublished) is a little hard to decipher, but we will try.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,
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
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 In Kramer v. Dale, Case No. D077610 (4th Dist., Div. 1 September 24, 2021) (unpublished), the 4/1 DCA
The Second Special Interrogatories Were Duplicative Of First Special Interrogatories To Which No Motion To Compel Was Made, So The Lower Court Lacked Jurisdiction To Award Sanctions The Second Time Around. We post on this one to share a nifty older case for litigators embroiled in discovery battles to keep in their back pockets.
However, Frivolous Appeal Sanctions Denied For Failure To Show The Appeal Was Brought For An Improper Motive. In Lazo v. Keller, Case No. G058765 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 29, 2021) (unpublished), two plaintiffs separately were ordered by the lower court to pay $4,900 in monetary discovery sanctions to defendant. Plaintiffs’ appeal was dismissed
Modern Trend Is To Recognize E-Discovery Recoupment Costs As Long As They Are Justified. Ya know, times change, technology changes, and jurisprudence changes. Although unpublished, City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, Case No. B305583 (2d Dist., Div. 5 July 8, 2021) (unpublished) shows how electronic discovery costs may be awardable, if justified, based
The Trial Court’s Finding That Nonparty’s Amended Responses And Production Were Adequate And In Compliance With Its Discovery Order In Ruling On Plaintiffs’ Request For A Contempt Sanction Against Nonparty Sealed The Results. Husband and wife plaintiffs – suing over two loans, one for $11,327 and one for $427,000, they had made to defendants
The Trial Court Declared The Discovery Motion Moot When It Granted Summary Judgment To Plaintiff, But Motion Was Renewed After Remand, And Parties Were Returned To Same Positions They Would Have Been In If Plaintiff Had Defeated Summary Judgment In The First Instance. In Timlick v. National Enterprise Systems, Case No. A160110 (1st Dist.,
Reduced Sanctions Were Awarded, But Excuses For The Losing Side Were Not Credited. We would say that Heesung Investment, Inc. v. Karle, Case No. E074320 (4th Dist., Div. 2 May 11, 2021) (unpublished) indicates that, like many other appeals, credibility reigns king. This one involved reduced discovery sanctions of $4,423 against a litigant
