In ASAP Copy and Print v. Cannon Business Solutions, Inc., Case No. B232801 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 1, 2013) (unpublished), the appellate court did reverse a specific OSC re sanctions order based on due process grounds. Although multiple grounds may have supported sanctions, the lower court’s order only cited one specific section, […]
In pro per husband got hit with a $5,000 discovery sanction in Marriage of Maynard, Case No. H035859 (6th Dist. Apr. 12, 2013) (unpublished). He appealed, but the appellate court found the order was not immediately appealable. Reason? CCP § 904.1(a)(11), (12) says $5,000 or less for a sanctions award cannot be appealed until
In Leeyer v. Pro Circuit Products, Inc., Case No. D059660 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 19, 2013) (unpublished), an attorney was hit with $6,400 in discovery sanctions under CCP § 2030.030 for not abiding with the terms of a court order regarding the form of a letter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
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
Discovery, Mediation, and RFA Sanctions Denied. Hi, folks. Although we are in the Holidays (busy at that), we do like to report on decisions that have issues of recurring interest to California litigators. The next one should be a case that peaks such an interest and provides resonant lessons to us all —
Oops In Optimum Processing Solutions, L.L.C. v. Intel Corp., Civ. No. 1:09-cv-1098-TCB (N.D. Ga.) [Doc. 271 filed Sept. 14, 2012), District Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. has decided that Acacia Research subsidiary Optimum Processing Solutions, L.L.C. (OPS) will have to pay fees and expenses under F.R.Civ. P. 37 for Intel’s motion to compel
In Sino Century Development Ltd. v. Farley, Case No B236912 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 3, 2012) (published), a trial judge imposed $81,461.13 in sanctions upon a defendant and his counsel under California Rule of Court 2.30, which authorizes “reasonable monetary sanctions” to be awarded to a party by a person failing without
Cost Of Complying With Subpoena By Third Party Was Minimal And Subpoena Was Not Issued In Bad Faith Or Was Not Facially Defective Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(1) allows a district judge issuing a subpoena to award appropriate sanctions, including lost earnings and reasonable attorney’s fees, against a party or attorney responsible for
