Motion: Sanctions & Protective Order
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230
DATE: 06/24/2026 TIME: 9:00 and 9:01 A.M.
LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 24CV428612 Plaza Services, LLC vs Motion: Set Aside Default/Judgment George Berry Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 1
LINE 2 24CV434201 Balbinder Kaur vs Motion: Attorneys Fees & Costs General Motors, LLC LINES 3-4 25CV456689 Richard Chamberlain vs Hearing: Motion to Strike Santa Clara Public Hearing: Demurrer Defender’s Office et al Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 3 LINES 5-6 25CV460503 Roy Toledo vs D.H. Motion: Sanctions & Protective Order Smith Company, Inc. Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to) Line 5 LINE 7 25CV471073 John Doe L.M., an Motion: Compel individual, vs Craig Chandler et al Please Ctrl Click on (or scroll down to Line 7) LINES 8 25CV478936 Ari Lazier vs Walnut Hearing: Petition Compel Creek Ford et al Arbitration
Please scroll down to Line 8
9:01 CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 25CV468267 Mercy Falls, LLC vs Motion: Withdraw as attorney United Security Specialists, Inc. et al Notice is proper. No opposition received. Attorney Jacqueline Simonovich’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Mercy Falls LLC is GRANTED.
Movant to e-file Form MC-053 within 2 days of the hearing. Movant shall give notice to Plaintiff within 2 days of the date of the hearing, including the following: Plaintiff must appear at the Further Case Management Conference (to be scheduled) in Department 12. * Counsel to appear for scheduling*
Calendar Line 5-6 Case Name: Roy Toledo v D.H. Smith Company, Inc. Case No.: 25CV460503
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
[Plaintiff's requests for a protective order and appointment of a discovery referee have been withdrawn. The sole remaining issues are Plaintiff's requests for monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.030 and 128.5.]
The Court previously considered the circumstances surrounding the parties' January 23, 2026 deposition dispute in connection with Defendant's motion to compel further deposition testimony. In its April 8, 2026 order, the Court reviewed the deposition excerpts and correspondence submitted by the parties, found that the deposition had become unnecessarily contentious, noted that certain commentary by examining counsel contributed to the escalation of the dispute, granted Defendant's motion to compel completion of Plaintiff's deposition, and denied Defendant's request for sanctions.
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?”
I. Request for Sanctions Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2023.030
Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 authorizes sanctions for misuse of the discovery process. Misuses of the discovery process include, among other things, employing a discovery method in a manner that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (c).)
Plaintiff contends that defense counsel engaged in a pattern of hostile and demeaning conduct throughout discovery, including argumentative deposition questioning, sarcastic and condescending communications, mischaracterizations concerning deposition scheduling, and repeated accusations that Plaintiff and counsel were attempting to delay or obstruct discovery. Plaintiff points to, among other things, defense counsel's references to opposing counsel's "shenanigans," an email offering to provide "wi-fi and coffee and bagel" if counsel arrived early, comments regarding a purported "delay, derail and prevent strategy," and statements made during deposition proceedings that Plaintiff characterizes as belittling, intimidating, or unnecessarily combative.
The Court does not condone discourteous, sarcastic, argumentative, or condescending conduct during discovery. Counsel are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with the California Attorney Guidelines of Civility and Professionalism and the Santa Clara County Bar Association Code of Professionalism. As recognized in Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1015, depositions should be conducted in a professional manner free from harassment and intimidation.
The Court's concern regarding the tone of certain communications and deposition exchanges does not end the analysis. The issue before the Court is whether the conduct satisfies the statutory standards for monetary sanctions. On this record, the Court concludes it does not.
Having again reviewed the parties' submissions, the Court reaches the same conclusion it reached in connection with the April 8, 2026 ruling. The record reflects a contentious discovery dispute, mutual accusations of misconduct, and instances of unprofessional behavior. The Court previously observed that certain commentary by examining counsel contributed to the escalation of the dispute. However, the Court is not persuaded that the conduct identified by Plaintiff constitutes a misuse of the discovery process warranting monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030.
The Court further notes that, when ruling on Defendant's motion to compel arising from the same underlying events, it declined to impose sanctions. Nothing presented in the instant motion warrants a different conclusion.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 is DENIED.
II. Request for Sanctions Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.5
Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 authorizes sanctions only for actions or tactics made in bad faith that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5, subd. (a).) A tactic is frivolous if it is totally and completely without merit or undertaken for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5, subd. (b)(2).)
Because of the seriousness of such sanctions, the statute is directed at exceptional circumstances and must be applied cautiously. (In re Marriage of Sahafzadeh-Taeb & Taeb (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 124, 147; Monex Internat., Ltd. v. Peinado (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1619, 1622.) The power to impose sanctions under section 128.5 should be exercised sparingly and reserved for truly egregious conduct. (Luke v. Baldwin-United Corp. (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 664, 669.)
Plaintiff argues that defense counsel's conduct demonstrates a pattern of harassment and manipulation akin to the conduct at issue in Sahafzadeh-Taeb. The Court disagrees.The conduct described by Plaintiff—including sarcastic emails, discourteous remarks, accusations concerning scheduling disputes, and contentious deposition exchanges—does not establish the type of bad-faith actions or tactics contemplated by section 128.5. Unlike the conduct addressed in Sahafzadeh-Taeb, the record here does not demonstrate litigation tactics that were frivolous, manipulative, obstructive, or undertaken solely for purposes of delay. Nor does the Court find evidence sufficient to establish the subjective bad faith required by the statute.
The Court remains troubled by the tone reflected in portions of the record. However, even assuming the conduct occurred substantially as Plaintiff describes, the Court cannot conclude that Defendant or defense counsel engaged in actions or tactics that were frivolous or intended solely to cause unnecessary delay within the meaning of section 128.5.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 is DENIED.
III. Defendant's Request for Sanctions
Defendant requests sanctions on the ground that Plaintiff's motion lacks merit.
The Court declines to award sanctions. Although Plaintiff has not prevailed on the motion, the Court cannot conclude that the motion was frivolous or brought solely for purposes of harassment or delay. The Court's prior ruling acknowledged concerns regarding the tone and conduct reflected in portions of the parties' discovery interactions. Under these circumstances, an award of sanctions against Plaintiff would be inappropriate.
Defendant's request for sanctions is DENIED.
DISPOSITION
Plaintiff's motion for monetary sanctions is DENIED.
Defendant's request for sanctions is DENIED.
The Court will prepare the Order.