Motion for Discovery Sanctions
Appearances: Department CM2 conducts non-evidentiary proceedings, such as law and motion, remotely, by Zoom videoconference pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 367.75 and Orange County Local Rule (OCLR) 375. All counsel and self-represented parties appearing for such hearings must check-in online through the Court’s website at https://www.occourts.org/civil-remote-hearings prior to the commencement of their hearing. Once the online check-in is completed, participants will be prompted to join the courtroom’s Zoom hearing session. Participants will initially be directed to a virtual waiting room pending the start of their specific video hearing.
It is your responsibility to ensure that your audio and video are functioning properly prior to your hearing.
Parties preferring to appear in-person for law and motion hearings may do so pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 367.75 and OCLR 375.
Public Access: The courtroom remains open for all evidentiary and non-evidentiary proceedings.
No filming, broadcasting, photography, or electronic recording is permitted of the video session pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 1.150 and OCLR 180.
TENTATIVE RULINGS May 21, 2026
# Case Name Tentative
2. 30-2025-01506069- Before the Court is a Motion for Discovery Sanctions (ROA CU-PA-NJC 47). Jee vs. Stanbury On March 18, 2026, Plaintiff Anthony Jee (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena directed to Defendant Gretchen Lawrence Stanbury (“Defendant”). ROA 39. On March 19, 2026, Defendant filed Motion for Monetary Sanctions against Plaintiff and Injury Law Center. ROA 47. On May 5, 2026, after further meet and confer efforts, Plaintiff withdrew Motion to Quash Subpoena and Defendant agreed to withdraw the subject subpoenas. ROA 65.
Only the Motion for Discovery Sanctions is now pending. ROA 47.
Defendant requests that the Court impose sanctions in the amount of $4,500 pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure Sections 2023.030(a) and 2023.010(h) for Plaintiff’s alleged misuse of the discovery process. ROA 47.
I. Motion for Sanctions
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2023.030 provides that “[t]he [C]ourt may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.”
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
One example of misuse of the discovery process involves making or opposing unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or limit discovery. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.030(h).
The Court finds that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification in bringing the Motion to Quash because the motion sought to limit what Plaintiff reasonably believed to be an invasion of privacy. Further, the parties ultimately resolved the dispute informally through additional meet and confer efforts, with Plaintiff withdrawing the Motion to Quash and Defendant agreeing to withdraw the subpoenas. ROA 65. Under these circumstances, the imposition of sanctions would be unjust.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Discovery Sanctions is DENIED. ROA 47. The Court declines to impose sanctions on Plaintiff.
Plaintiff to give notice.