Beyond That, The Defense Did Not Pull The Trigger Too Hastily On Motions To Compel, Trying To Work It Out.
Discovery frequently is the bane of both practitioners and judges, not to mention studies that confirm it has led to an increase in the costs of civil litigation for many, many cases. California has a scheme allowing parties to stipulate to discovery extensions, but they must be confirmed in writing (although emails certainly satisfy this requirement). The next case shows the importance of creating an adequate record where sanctions are being fought on the basis that a discovery extension was obtained from the other side.
In Cantu v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., Case No. B295973 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 15, 2020) (unpublished), Plaintiffs failed to answer some paper discovery requests and failed to obtain a firm written confirmation of a discovery extension, although the propounding defense attorneys tried to work it out. Plaintiffs finally propounded boilerplate objections to the requests and tried to argue that a blanket-type extension had been granted without evidence of a written confirmation. The defense waited a little while longer, filing motions to compel and seeking $9,440 in attorney’s fees as discovery sanctions. The trial judge used a blended hourly rate and reduced the number of hours to impose a sanction of $5,684 against plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs’ appeal was not successful. As a stark reminder to which we have posted on before, the failure to provide a reporter’s transcript of the relevant law-and-motion hearings was fatal, especially where a discretionary ruling was involved as opposed to one on legal issues. Further, there was no clear proof of a written discovery extension such that there was no substantial justification for the opposition to the motions to compel. The appellate court also observed that the defense did not file the motions to compel too soon, only doing so after receiving boilerplate objections and no plan by the other side as to providing real answers.
Comments