However, Litigant’s Attorneys Were Not Subject To Sanctions Because No Evidence Indicated The Attorneys Advised The Clients To Engage In The Discovery Violations.
Litigators need to read the Sixth District’s recent decision in Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. Hennings, Case Nos. H042715 et al. (6th Dist. Dec. 2, 2020) (published) on sanctions available for discovery abuses. In a very scholarly opinion, the Court of Appeal held that (1) monetary sanctions cannot be denied against litigants engaging in discovery abuses simply because terminating sanctions (in this case, dismissing some claims) had been previously granted, because this does constitute injustice under the “sanctions unjust” exception; and (2) litigant’s attorneys cannot be sanctioned under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 unless there is evidence that they advised the clients to engage in the discovery violations. Here is what the Sixth District had to say on the attorney issue: “We understand defendants’ observation about the difficulty of eliciting direct proof of such conduct in light of an attorney’s ethical obligations and privileges protecting attorney-client communications. However, the difficulty of carrying this burden stems from the statute itself, and we lack the authority to ignore its explicit statutory directive.”
Comments