Motion for Reconsideration; Motion to Compel Discovery
DISCOVERY RESPONSES 3) CASE PROGRESS CONFERENCE
This matter comes on for Petitioner Thomas Jacobs’ motion for reconsideration and Respondent Karen Jacobs’ motion to compel discovery.
Motion for Reconsideration
On March 23, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration under Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 1008 asking the Court to reconsider its February 24, 2026, order denying his request for a seek work order. In the February 24, 2026, order the Court granted Petitioner’s request for a vocational evaluation and independent medical evaluation to determine Respondent’s ability to work; the seek work order was denied as premature until Respondent’s ability to work is determined.
CCP section 1008 provides in pertinent part:
“(b) A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part....may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which case it shall be shown by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. For a failure to comply with this subdivision, any order made on a subsequent application may be revoked or set aside on ex parte motion.”
In support of his motion to reconsider, Petitioner offers two arguments. First, he argues the Court’s prior order reversed the burden of proof, and that Respondent should have had to prove her inability to work. A party’s belief that a court has applied the wrong legal standard is not a basis for reconsideration; such a contention is “utterly specious.” (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500, as modified on denial of reh'g (Apr. 3, 1995).) Even assuming CCP section 1008’s definition of “new or different...law” encompasses Petitioner’s contention, he is mistaken as to the law.
Petitioner sought an order directing Respondent to seek work; he had the burden of proof. (See Evid. Code § 115, 500; Cal. Rule of Court 5.2
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?”
Petitioner’s next argument is that he has provided newly discovered evidence. A party relying on newly discovered evidence must demonstrate the information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it at the original hearing. (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206.) The evidence also must be material, noncumulative, and likely to produce a different result on reconsideration. Petitioner offers a report from private investigator demonstrating that Respondent can stand, walk, climb stairs and go to the gym. From this, he asks the Court to conclude she is able to work and therefore a seek work order is appropriate.
The parties argue about whether the investigator’s report and declaration are admissible “evidence” within the meaning of section 1008; neither party’s analysis is correct. Petitioner argues the declaration is admissible under CCP section 2009. He is incorrect; that provision allows for admissibility of declarations in support of procedural motions. It is not a generalized hearsay exception. Respondent argues that the report cannot constitute “evidence” for purposes of section 1008. While the investigator’s report itself may inadmissible hearsay, Petitioner could offer the testimony of the investigator under Family Code section 217. The Court can also dispense with live testimony in its discretion and for good cause. Therefore, the Court accepts the declaration as proffer of what live testimony might be presented.
Regardless of how the investigator’s information is presented to the court, it is neither new nor material. In his December 22, 2025, declaration (and throughout his pleadings) Petitioner has already averred that Respondent is perfectly capable of work; the investigator’s report merely tends to corroborates that opinion, it is not new evidence. Also, the evidence or something similar could have been presented earlier. Petitioner was aware Respondent was living in Florida. He has for some time been making allegations of fraud, and could have earlier engaged an investigator to develop evidence in support of his contention that Respondent is faking her medical conditions.
In his declaration Petitioner does not state when the investigator was engaged. Petitioner simply says “after some time in 2026 he located” Respondent living in an apartment in Clearwater, Florida. Petitioner concludes he clearly could not have obtained this evidence before the hearing on February 24, 2026, but that conclusion is not supported by facts. The motion is DENIED for failure to provide new and material evidence.
Petitioner also claims Respondent should be imputed income based on the investigator’s report. It may be that Respondent is capable of work and should be imputed some income but that is for a motion to modify support, which is not before the Court. Respondent is subject to the requirements of Family Code section 4330 regardless of whether a seek work order is in place. Respondent’s request to impute income is DENIED without prejudice to bringing such a request through the proper procedural mechanism.
Sanctions for the Unmeritorious Motion to Reconsider
Respondent argues Petitioner should be sanctioned for bringing an unmeritorious motion. CCP section 1008(d) provides that a court may punish with contempt or sanctions a failure to comply with the requirements of subdivision (b). It is true that at least part of Petitioner’s motion is not legally supported, and therefore potentially violates CCP section 128.7(b)(2). That Court has discretion to impose sanctions or institute contempt proceedings. Petitioner’s specious legal argument is potentially sanctionable, but it did not constitute the primary basis of his motion.
Petitioner’s attempt to present new material evidence fell short, but it was not being presented primarily for an improper purpose. And while Petitioner’s arguments are properly addressed to a support motion rather than reconsideration of the denial of the seek work order, the Court declines to impose sanctions or institute contempt proceedings for these tactical errors.
Discovery Compliance
On February 4, 2026, Respondent filed a motion to compel a discovery response. While the motion has been pending, Petitioner filed a verified response on May 5, 2026, which as discussed below, was deficient. Respondent’s motion is thus both a motion to compel and a motion to compel further responses. Insofar as it is a motion to compel further responses, Respondent’s motion is timely as it was filed within 45 days of the response. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(c); § 2031.310(c).)
Respondent seeks an order compelling Petitioner to serve amended, verified, code-compliant responses to Respondent’s Request for Production of Documents, Set 2 (RPD2) within ten days and an award of monetary sanctions against Petitioner and his counsel. After the parties had agreed to a one-month extension of time to respond, Petitioner failed to respond on the agreedupon date, November 10, 2025. Instead, Petitioner’s counsel sent an email at 4:52 p.m. on November 10, 2025 stating that Petitioner objected to producing any documents until the issue of his request to amend the petition to allege a Nullity had been decided. The parties met and conferred extensively. Petitioner filed a verified response on May 5, 2026. The parties met and conferred further and consulted with a discovery facilitator but were unable to resolve the dispute.
Petitioner does not deny that he has failed to produce any documents. He does not even contend his responses were code-compliant. His primary argument is that he should not be required to produce documents while his appeal of the denial of his request to amend the dissolution to allege a nullity is pending. He complains the discovery process has been too expensive, but Respondent argues it is Petitioner and his counsel who have created unnecessary expense through counsel’s failure to respond in good faith, delays, and failure to provide codecompliant responses.
Petitioner also argues that the bulk of the requested documents are in the possession of his business manager and accountant, who has been difficult to reach and slow to respond. This concern goes primarily to the logistics of the production of documents themselves, not the adequacy of Petitioner’s response to the RPD2.
Respondent’s motion to compel further responses is GRANTED. Petitioner is to serve amended, code-compliant responses to Respondent’s RPD2, without objections, by June 29, 2026. As for the actual production of the documents, the Court is aware there are some challenges obtaining the documents from the custodian. The Court will set a compliance date for production of the documents after conferring with counsel.
Discovery Sanctions
Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 2023.030(a) provides: “If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Sanctions are available for, inter alia, failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery, making evasive responses, making without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery and unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, opposing a motion to compel.
Sanctions may be imposed on the party, counsel or both. “To avoid sanctions, an unsuccessful opponent to a motion to compel may show ‘substantial justification’ for his or her position—i.e., a rational basis to conclude that the party's failure to fulfill its discovery obligations was justified. [Citation.] Substantial justification is justification that is ‘clearly reasonable because it is well grounded in both law and fact.’ [Citation.]” (Pollock v Superior Court (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1348, 1358.)
Petitioner has not shown substantial justification. His preference that discovery not proceed while his appeal of a different issue is pending is not a basis to refuse to respond and then to refuse to provide code-compliant responses. The Court will impose sanctions in the amount of $9,870 for actually incurred fees and expenses of $8,770 plus two hours of attorney time for preparing for and appearing at the hearing and preparing the order, for a total. The Court does not award the full amount requested for the hearing because counsel must appear for the case progress conference. The sanction is imposed 50% on Petitioner and 50% on Petitioner’s counsel, payable to Respondent’s counsel by July 17, 2026.
Sanctions may also be warranted under CCP section 2023.050. That section provides: Notwithstanding any other law, and in addition to any other sanctions imposed pursuant to this chapter, a court shall impose a one-thousand-dollar ($1,000) sanction, payable to the requesting party, upon a party, person, or attorney if, upon reviewing a request for a sanction made pursuant to Section 2023.040, the court finds any of the following:
(1) The party, person, or attorney did not respond in good faith to a request for the production of documents made pursuant to Section 2020.010, 2020.410, 2020.510, or 2025.210, or to an inspection demand made pursuant to Section 2031.010.
(2) This sanction may not be imposed without notice and an opportunity to be heard. Counsel for Petitioner is hereby notified the Court is considering imposing a $1,000 sanction on him pursuant to CCP section 2023.050 based his actions of negotiating an extension of time to respond and then literally at the last minute sending an unverified email blanket notice of objection, which does not constitute a valid response, then delaying any verified response until May 5, 2026.
Other Issues
Petitioner has twice now insinuated in his pleadings that the Court’s decisions are based on gender bias. Insinuations of bias in the pleadings impugn the integrity of the Court and are contemptuous. Counsel for Petitioner is cautioned that further attacks on the integrity of the Court will result in the issuance of an Order to Show Cause: re contempt.
Appearances required. At the hearing counsel for Respondent will be ordered to prepare the formal Findings and Order after Hearing.