Litigant’s Claims Of Inability To Pay Was Not Adequately Documented And Raised Too Late. In Duran v. Atlantic Memorial Hospital Associates, Inc., Case No. B286660 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Apr. 8, 2020) (unpublished), a litigant was ordered to bear 50% of a discovery referee’s costs. CCP § 639(a)(5) does allow a trial court to […]
Various Fees And Sanctions Ordered Under FRCP 37. We sometimes blog on cases outside of California. This one caught our eye because it received press in a March 30, 2020 post by Debra Cassens Weiss in the ABA Journal. In REC Marine Logistics, LLC v. Richard, No. 19-11149 (E.D. La. Mar. 27, 2020)
Also, Father Ordered To Pay Mother $2,980 For Prosecuting A Frivolous Appeal. Father, in Rybolt v. Riley, Case No. C086056 (3d Dist. Mar. 24, 2020 (unpublished), appealed from a non-appealable vocational evaluation order and discovery/Family Code section 271 totaling $3,250 for bringing motions to compel which were denied/did not further legitimate purposes of the
Motion Denying Discovery Order Is Nonappealable, But 2/8 DCA Treated It As Mandate Petition; CCP § 128.5 Principles Were Not Involved, Because Discovery Sanctions Were At Issue Instead. The 2/8 DCA in Dalessandro v. Mitchell, Case No. B293472 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Dec. 17, 2019 unpublished), but certified for publication on January 3, 2020,
Motion To Augment The Record To Include The Video, One Day After The Appellate Argument, Was Deemed Untimely. Genesis Media, LLC v. Misle, Case No. B294620 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 10, 2019) (unpublished) is an appeal from a discovery sanction where an inadequate appellate record and untimely motion to augment sealed the fate
2/4 DCA Finds Persuasive Reasoning From Prior 2/8 Decision On This Issue. We found Baiul-Farina v. Crown Media Holdings, Inc., Case No. B279653 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 21, 2019) (unpublished) interesting, not because it affirmed discovery sanctions rulings, but for its discussion on appealability. Appellant argued that discovery sanctions rulings were not appealable
CCP § 2023.040 Was The Key Statutory Provision. Just to show you that technicalities can matter in the discovery area, the First District, Division 2 reversed a $2,500 discovery sanction against ex-wife in Marriage of Stupp v. Schilders, Case No. A154396 (1st Dist., Div. 2 July 10, 2019) (unpublished). What happened is that a
No Oral Testimony Required Under The Circumstances. We found Marriage of Clarke and Akel, Case No. A151888 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 11, 2018) (unpublished) to be an interesting case given that it involved an intersection between family law and civil discovery procedures. The essence of the matter was a discovery dispute between
CCP § 1987.2 Prevailing Party Fees In Subpoena Context Might Depend On Who Met Litigation Objectives, Although The Test Is Not Crystal Clear. John/Jane Roe v. Halbig, Case No. H043248 (6th Dist. Nov. 20, 2018) (published) is an interesting, but somewhat perplexing, opinion on the fees to be awarded to a party which ultimately
Appellate Court Rejects In Pro Per’s Due Process Argument And Challenge To Temporary Judge’s Initial Assignment To Motion Matter. DeWitt v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Case No. A151545 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 22, 2018) (unpublished) is a situation where an in pro per attorney, representing himself as plaintiff, sued several defendants in a
