CALIFORNIA FAMILY LAW
...Attorney Fees
......Sanctions
.........Discovery
 23 Cards On This Topic:
  • Sanctions for discovery abuses.
  • Requirements for Motion for Discovery Sanctions
  • Evasive discovery responses frustrate the goal of facilitating settlement by concealing the truth and can result in adverse rulings and attorney's fees consequences.
  • RFA costs of proof properly awarded where Ps did not have a good faith belief they would prevail on their claims arising out of the alleged oral contract.
  • Sanctions appropriate where Ds failed to admit RFAs by answering they lacked sufficient information to admit or deny; motion to compel not required.
  • Sanctions for denying RFAs proper where party fails to show they could reasonably believe they would prevail at trial.
  • Code Civ. Proc. §2023.030 (a) limits the court's discretion to decline to award monetary sanctions for violation of discovery rules.
  • Discovery sanctions may not be imposed as a punishment.
  • The principles that govern an award of attorney's fees for discovery abuses are compulsion, causation, and reasonableness.
  • Attorneys may only be sanctioned for advising disobedience to a court's discovery order, not merely contributing to disobedience or failing to diligently pursue requested documents.
  • After appropriate warnings, court may impose substantial daily monetary sanctions for failure to comply with discovery orders.
  • Trial court may impose sanctions under CCP §1987.2 against litigant continuing to pursue motion to quash that, though legitimately filed, should have been more promptly withdrawn when rendered unnecessary by subpoena's amendment.
  • D properly ordered to pay Ps' costs in organizing voluminous documents D produced in a thoroughly disordered condition.
  • No error in denying discovery sanctions for Ds' not returning e-mails P sent to her attorney on company computer as emails not privileged.
  • Sanctions proper where W brought discovery motions re motion barred by her own delay and unsuccessfully argued H and others were themselves misusing discovery process.
  • Misuse of the discovery process may result in the imposition of a variety of sanctions, such as payment of costs and evidence preclusion.
  • "Costs of proof" for denying admission requests could only be imposed against party, not party's counsel.
  • Trial court had may not award sanctions for further deposing witness as discovery sanction because Ds had not "incurred" those expenses w/in the meaning of CCP 2023.030 (a).
  • Factual findings, imposed as sanctions on H for evasive and obstreperous conduct during discovery, were proper, and resulting award of 100% of c/p to W justified.
  • Issue sanction declaring F’s income to be $40,000/mo. based on loan application proper because of his refusal to comply with discovery requests.
  • Peace officer may be liable for sanctions where he frustrated policy of law by not signing waiver form re discovery of his payroll records in divorce, leading to extensive trial and appellate litigation.
  • Sanctions properly imposed on attorney who instructed witness not to answer depo questions which could lead to admissible evidence and were relevant.
  • Appealable order existed even though sanction amount did not exceed $5,000 where parties reserved right to appeal as part of settlement and stipulation.


    •