Cases: Sanctions

Discovery Sanctions: Sanctions Against Litigants’ Attorneys Reversed Where Evidence Showed Client Was Responsible For Sanctionable Conduct

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Second District, Division 2 Reverses $3,387.50 Sanctions Award Against Attorneys.      Under various discovery statutes, the trial court has discretion to award discovery sanctions jointly and severally against losing litigant and/or their attorneys. However, attorneys have another defense in their quiver—the “my client made me do it” defense.      The Court of Appeal is Manzanares […]

Sanctions: CCP Section 128.7 Sanctions Are Not Proper Unless The Unfiled Motion Has A Definitive Motion Hearing Date Set

Cases: Sanctions

Second District, Division 4 Reverses Sanctions Award For Failure to Meet Technical Requirements.      Here is one for all of you practitioners desiring to set up a CCP section 128.7 sanctions motion, correctly we might add.      Defendant served plaintiff with a notice of motion for sanctions in the amount of $7,022.50 under CCP section

Trial Discovery Sanctions: Second District, Division 1 Reverses Third-Party Subpoena Monetary Sanctions Based On Lack Of Statutory Basis

Cases: Sanctions

  Appellate Panel Does Not Condone Sanctioned Conduct, But Found No Discovery Law Basis To Sustain the Award.      As we have indicated before, attorney’s fees awards—whether mundane or imposed as a sanctions—must either have a contractual or statutory basis, depending on the type of award. The next case illustrates, even though the discovery conduct

Discovery Sanctions: $3,587.00 Deposition Sustained Because It Is Collateral And Not Independently Appealable Until Later

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

  Sixth District Provides a Good Lesson in Properly Timing Appeal of Discovery Sanctions Under $5,000.      This next unpublished case, in a 3-0 unpublished decision from the Sixth District, is a good reminder on when the appeal of smaller discovery sanctions orders—under $5,000—is properly made.      In Stough v. Klure, Case No. H034000 (6th

Discovery Sanctions: Monetary And Terminating Sanctions Affirmed For Repeated Discovery Disputes

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Fourth District, Division 3 Finds Sanctions Were No Abuse of Discretion.      The next case is one in which the Fourth District, Division 3 affirmed monetary and terminating sanctions against either plaintiff’s attorney or plaintiff based on failure to respond to requests or failing to be candid in electronic discovery matters. This shows how one

In The News . . . . Orly Taitz Of Mission Viejo Sanctioned $20,000 By Georgia Federal District Judge Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11

Cases: Sanctions, In The News

District Judge Clay D. Land Issues Sanction in 43-Page Opinion. Mission Viejo attorney/dentist Orly Taitz—who heads the "birther" movement (trying to oust President Obama from the presidency based on the allegation that he did failed to produce a satisfactory birth certificate)—has been in the news frequently for her filing of federal court actions on the

CCP Section 177.5 Sanctions: They Do Apply In Criminal Proceedings

Cases: Sanctions

  Third District Rejects Other Challenges to $1,000 Sanctions Award.      Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5 provides that a judicial officer has discretion to impose reasonable monetary sanctions, not to exceed $1.500, payable to the court for any violation of a lawful court order by a witness, party, or party’s attorney if the violation

E-Discovery Monetary Sanctions: Recent Maryland Federal Court Decision Nicely Summarizes Circumstances Justifying Monetary Cost/Fee Awards For Spoliation

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Sanctions

Case Also Addresses Other E-Discovery Issues of Interest.      Although we usually review only California decisions, a recent federal decision has a nice summary of the most typical situations justifying imposition of costs or attorney’s fees in instances where there was spoliation of potential evidence during the discovery phase of a case or after the

CCP Section 128.7 Sanctions: Make Sure You Pursue Them In A Separately Noticed Motion At A Different Hearing Date

Cases: Sanctions

First District, Division 3 Reiterates Requirement in Unpublished Decision.      In Harpel v. Spina, Case No. A123315 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 14, 2009) (unpublished), defendants requested and were awarded sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 when defendants asked for them in a 128.7 motion that was joined for hearing with their demurrer

Scroll to Top