“Walking Out and Not Coming Back” Is Not a Legitimate Option. The defense in Fletcher v. HPN Holdings, Case No. F064864 (5th Dist. Apr. 8, 2014) (unpublished) was sanctioned $6,000 under CCP §2023.030(a), inclusive of attorney’s fees for bringing the motion to compel and arguing it, for failing to honor an agreement to […]
Appeals Court Affirms Denial of Sanctions But Remands for Cost-Shifting in Favor of Non-Party in FRCP 45 Subpoena Dispute. The Ninth Circuit has ended the year with a “bang” as far as clarifying non-party appeal rights and the circumstances under which subpoena compliance cost shifting is mandatory under F.R.Civ.P. 45. The opinion
$6,000 Aggregate Sanctions for Three Separate Discovery Motions Did Not Meet $5,000 Minimum Appellate Threshold. In order to be appealable, an order imposing a monetary sanction must exceed $5,000. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1(a)(12).) However, what happens when a litigant appeals a $6,000 reduced sanctions award where the opponent filed three separate discovery
Trial Court Lacked Jurisdiction to Impose Discovery Sanctions. In Ayala v. Gutierrez, Case No. B243006 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 3, 2013) (unpublished), defendants filed a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint and a motion to compel discovery (including a request for sanctions) against plaintiff. Before the motions were heard, plaintiff dismissed
In Leeyer v. Pro Circuit Products, Inc., Case No. D059660 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 19, 2013) (unpublished), an attorney was hit with $6,400 in discovery sanctions under CCP § 2030.030 for not abiding with the terms of a court order regarding the form of a letter sent to defendant’s customers buying a
We thank reader Kurt Yap for educating us on these two issues. What happens if you are an in pro per litigant and want to obtain discovery sanctions for the work you did (based on them being akin to attorney’s fees as if the work had been done by a retained outside
Only $1 Million Reduction From Fees Requested. Patent/trade secrets are usually vigorously and heavily litigated, and the losers can get hit with substantial fees/expenses as Gabriel Techs., Corp. v. Qualcomm, Inc., Case No. 08CV1992 AJB (MDD), 2013 WL 410103 (S.D.Cal. Feb. 1, 2013) demonstrates. There, plaintiffs lost a patent infringement/trade secrets case.
A February 19, 2013 post on the on-line version of the ABA Journal has some interesting tidbits and suggestions in the eDiscovery area. In line with results from a Compliance, Governance and Oversight Counsel (CGOC) survey, the average legal department spends approximately $3 million per discovery to gather and prepare information for
Our Tally Shows Over $1.66 Million In Sanctions Sustained On Appeal. If our readers want to read a truly wild case on discovery abuse (especially regarding electronic discovery, deposition noncandidness, and third-party witness tampering), you gotta read Robin Singh Ed. Services v. Blueprint Test Preparation, Case No. B204775 et al. (2d Dist., Div.
Opposite Side Did Not Raise Lack of Capacity by Answer or Demurrer, So No Dice On Sanctions. In V & P Trading Co., Inc. v. United Charter, LLC, Case No. C070571 (3d Dist. Dec. 19, 2012) (published), the trial court denied a motion to compel by a suspended corporation and awarded monetary sanctions
