What Happens When a Discovery Order is Violated?

N. Kelly Hoang Law Firm sued Minh Quant Hoang for $568,000 for allegedly unpaid legal services over roughly five years. N. Kelly Hoang Law Firm v. Hoang, 2023 WL 3150110 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2023).

                I.          THE DISCOVERY VIOLATION AND COURT ORDER

Minh propounded discovery on Kelly.  After Kelly failed to respond, Minh moved to compel.  The court ordered Kelly to respond.  “Kelly failed to provide responses within the Court’s deadline.”  Id. at *1.

Minh’s counsel emailed Kelly stating the intent to move for sanctions for failure to comply with the order.  “The next day, Kelly served her responses…. Kelly told Minh’s counsel that she thought she had fourteen (14) days to file her responses.”  Id.

Minh sought terminating sanctions or, in the alternative, evidentiary and monetary sanctions.

The Hoang court was not persuaded.

              II.          THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR EACH TYPE OF SANCTIONS

While Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v) authorized terminating sanctions, those sanctions “are authorized only in extreme circumstances and only where the violation is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party.” Id. (cleaned up).

While Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(ii) authorized evidentiary sanctions, there are two standards, “one general and one specific—that limit a district court’s discretion. First, any sanction must be just; second, the sanction must be specifically related to the particular ‘claim’ which was at issue in the order to provide discovery.” Id. (cleaned up). Additionally:

If a sanction would be case-dispositive, the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its dockets; (3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.

Id. at *2 (cleaned up).

           III.          THE FACTS DID NOT SUPPORT SANCTIONS OF ANY KIND

The Hoang court held that terminating sanctions were “not warranted” because this was not an “extreme circumstance.”

Minh has made no showing that Kelly’s conduct interfered with the rightful decision of the case. And surely any prejudice to Minh from the two-day delay in receiving Kelly’s responses was minimal.

The court determined that an order precluding entry of “any documentary evidence at trial,” as requested by Minh, was not justified, writing:

Such a severe sanction in the face of a two-day delay would not be “just,” as required by the Ninth Circuit. Minh’s requested sanction is so draconian that it would effectively be case dispositive and is not justified here.

Finally, the court declined to award monetary sanctions because Kelly provided her responses and Minh’s motion was denied in full.