Discovery Sanctions in California: What You Need to Know and Why Experience Matters
Introduction: Discovery’s Role and the Stakes
Discovery is the engine of civil litigation in California, giving both sides the opportunity to gather evidence, clarify issues, and prepare for trial. But the process only works when all parties comply with their obligations. To ensure fairness and deter gamesmanship, California law provides for a range of sanctions when discovery is misused. These sanctions are not mere formalities-they can have a significant impact on the outcome of a case. Understanding how and when sanctions are imposed, and how to avoid costly missteps, is essential for anyone involved in litigation.
The Meet-and-Confer Requirement: A Mandatory First Step
Before a party can ask the court to intervene in most discovery disputes, California law requires a genuine, good-faith effort to resolve the issue informally. This “meet-and-confer” requirement is set forth in Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 2016.040, which states that parties “shall” meet and confer. This is a mandatory obligation, not just a best practice. Courts expect parties to engage in meaningful dialogue-often through substantive correspondence or direct discussion-rather than simply exchanging cursory emails. If a party fails to comply, the court may deny their motion outright and, under CCP § 2023.010(i), may even impose sanctions against the party that did not properly meet and confer. This rule ensures that judicial resources are reserved for disputes that truly require court intervention.
Statutory Authority: The Framework for Sanctions
California’s Civil Discovery Act provides a comprehensive statutory framework for addressing discovery abuses. CCP § 2023.010 defines what constitutes misuse of the discovery process, such as failing to respond, making unmeritorious objections, or disobeying court orders. Section 2023.030 then sets forth the available remedies, including monetary, issue, evidence, terminating, and contempt sanctions. The statutes governing specific discovery tools-such as interrogatories (CCP §§ 2030.290, 2030.300), requests for production (CCP §§ 2031.300, 2031.310), and requests for admission (CCP §§ 2033.280, 2033.290)-reinforce these obligations. In these statutes, the use of “shall” means that courts are required to impose sanctions for certain violations unless there is “substantial justification” or another circumstance that would make sanctions unjust.
Types of Sanctions: What Courts Can Impose
California courts may impose several types of discovery sanctions, including:
Monetary sanctions: Payment of reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees.
Issue sanctions: Deeming certain facts established or barring a party from contesting specific issues.
Evidence sanctions: Excluding evidence from trial.
Terminating sanctions: Striking pleadings, dismissing claims, or entering default.
Contempt sanctions: Fines or other penalties for direct violation of court orders.
Monetary sanctions are by far the most common consequence for discovery violations. Courts routinely order the payment of reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred in bringing or opposing a discovery motion. These awards are generally limited to the costs directly associated with the motion at issue. For more serious or repeated violations, the law authorizes additional remedies, such as issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions. These more severe outcomes are reserved for egregious or persistent misconduct and are imposed only when lesser remedies have proven inadequate.
The Financial Impact of Sanctions Motions
The monetary sanctions awarded for discovery violations are generally based on the reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the party bringing the motion. These amounts commonly include attorney’s fees, but may also cover other related expenses such as filing fees. For instance, if an attorney spends 6 hours preparing a motion at $500 per hour, the attorney’s fees alone would total $3,000. In addition, there is typically a court filing fee-generally $60 in California state court-which can also be included in the sanction award. When multiple discovery motions are necessary, these reasonable costs and expenses can quickly accumulate, resulting in a substantial financial burden for the party ordered to pay. The prospect of having to reimburse thousands of dollars in costs and fees for each motion can significantly affect litigation strategy and may even encourage parties to resolve disputes or settle earlier to avoid escalating expenses.
The Importance of Procedural Precision
Successfully obtaining discovery sanctions is not simply a matter of showing that the opposing party violated their obligations. California courts require strict compliance with procedural rules when requesting sanctions. Most critically, the moving party must properly cite and analyze the relevant statutory authority in their court papers. For example, CCP § 2023.040 requires that a notice of motion for sanctions clearly identify every person, party, and attorney against whom sanctions are sought, specify the type of sanction requested, and be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities and a declaration justifying any monetary amount requested.
Failure to comply with these requirements is a common reason courts deny sanctions requests-even when the underlying discovery abuse is clear. Courts routinely reject motions that do not specify the statutory basis for sanctions or that omit required details in the notice of motion. This technical landscape underscores why it is risky to handle discovery disputes without experienced legal guidance. Even a strong case for sanctions can fail if the statutory requirements are not meticulously followed.
Practical Tips to Avoid Sanctions
To avoid sanctions and ensure compliance, parties should:
Respond to discovery requests fully and on time.
Engage in genuine, documented meet-and-confer efforts before seeking court intervention.
Avoid making unmeritorious objections or withholding information without substantial justification.
Consult with experienced counsel when in doubt about discovery obligations or motion requirements.
Recent Developments: SB 235 and Stronger Enforcement
A significant recent development is the enactment of Senate Bill 235 (SB 235), which took effect on January 1, 2024. SB 235 introduced mandatory initial disclosure requirements in most California civil cases and extended the time for making those disclosures. Importantly for discovery sanctions, SB 235 also increased the minimum monetary fine for certain bad-faith discovery violations from $250 to $1,000. In some circumstances, attorneys sanctioned for discovery misconduct must report the sanction to the State Bar. These provisions are currently scheduled to remain in effect until January 1, 2027, when they will sunset unless further legislative action is taken. SB 235 reflects the California legislature’s commitment to deterring discovery abuse and ensuring that the consequences of noncompliance are clear and substantial.
Conclusion: Protect Your Interests with Experienced Guidance
Discovery sanctions in California are governed by detailed rules and procedures. Even when the facts are on your side, a failure to properly cite the relevant statutes or follow procedural requirements can result in a denial of sanctions-or, worse, exposure to sanctions yourself. The financial impact of a single sanctions motion can be substantial, and the risk of additional costs should never be underestimated. If you are facing a discovery dispute, have questions about your obligations, or want to ensure your approach is both effective and compliant, consider reaching out to Mr. Brooks. With deep experience in California discovery practice, Mr. Brooks can help you navigate these technical requirements and protect your interests at every stage. Contact Mr. Brooks today to discuss how he can help keep your case on track.
