Litigant Did Not Need To Show Expenses Were Actually Incurred, Plus The Appellate Court Reminds Us That Civility Applies To Both Self-Represented And Represented Litigants.
In Damak v. Superior Court, Case No. G065583 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 8, 2026) (published), a self-represented litigant (plaintiff) filed a motion to compel when the defense did not serve a variety of discovery responses, including a failure to provide document request responses. The lower court denied discovery monetary sanctions to plaintiff based on the premises that the in pro per litigant did not “actually incur” any expenses worthy of being awarded sanctions. The 4/3 DCA, in a 3-0 opinion authored by Justice Delaney based a writ petition, granted it in part. The appellate court determined that the matter had to be remanded because CCP § 2030.050 in a recent amendment allowed for a $1,000 monetary sanction not tethered to the status of the moving litigant (they are mandatory)—but the written findings under the statute needed to be made to determine if sanctions were appropriate. Also, at the end of the opinion, the appellate court reminded everyone that civility extended to in pro per litigants, stating it this way: “Civility is not always about what is said or how it is conveyed; it sometimes is about what is not said or done.”