Four motions to compel discovery
On February 27, 2026, March 4, 2026, March 11, 2026, and March 27, 2026, the parties met and conferred regarding the disputed documents. (Id., ¶7.) Prior to the March 4, 2026, meet and confer, City’s counsel provided Plaintiff’s counsel with a reacted version of the clawed back documents in an attempt to resolve the matter. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to the City’s claw back requests concerning eight of the eleven documents. (Id., ¶9.) The remaining three are the subject of this motion. (Id., ¶¶9, 10.) This court’s file does not contain any motion by Plaintiff with respect to the subject documents and the time for any such motion has passed. Accordingly, Plaintiff has waived his right to contest the City’s clawback notice and must return the documents.
3. Sanctions The City requests sanctions pursuant to CCP sections 2031.060 and 2023.030. Section 2031.285 does not have its own procedure for recovering ESI when a party refuses to comply with that code section. Thus, this motion was brought as a request for a protective order pursuant to section 2031.060. That section requires sanctions be imposed on the motion. (See section 2031.060(h); see also Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348 [Sanctions may be awarded despite no opposition being filed.]) Sanctions are also appropriate under CCP section 2023.010 upon a misuse of the discovery process.
The City seeks $12,136 in attorneys’ fees. Counsel’s declaration describing the work on this motion indicates that two attorneys worked on drafting and editing this motion. Counsel Colleen Cleary states her hourly rate is $445. (Cleary decl., ¶19.) She spent 11.7 hours on the motion, legal research, and preparing for meet and confer discussions, for a total of $5,701. (Id., ¶20.) A Senior Associate, Bernadette Bolan, also worked on the motion. (Id., ¶21.) Her hourly rate is $390. (Id., ¶21.) She spent 9.7 hours drafting, editing, and revising the memorandum of points and authorities and researching case law for a motion for a protective order, for a total of $3,765. (Id., ¶22.)
The City estimates it will incur an additional $2,670 reviewing opposition and drafting a reply. (Id., ¶23.) No opposition was filed so the additional fee request is moot. The City has not shown that the $1,557.50 it seeks for counsel’s preparation for meet and confer efforts and correspondence is reasonably recoverable. Regardless, the requested $9,466 to research and draft this motion is excessive. This court will award $5,700.00 as reasonable sanctions.
4. Conclusion and Order The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff Lucas Bohanan is directed to return the inadvertently disclosed privileged documents Bates marked DEF_000184460–85, DEF000146812–14, and DEF000140301–03, or provide written confirmation to the City that these documents have been destroyed, cease all further use of the unredacted versions of these documents, and have any reference to the privileged information contained within these documents stricken from any deposition record. Sanctions are granted as noted above. While the City has provided a proposed order, it contains findings and issues not addressed in this ruling. Therefore, City’s counsel is directed to submit a written order containing only those matters addressed by this ruling.
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?”
3. 25CV05867, Johnson v. B&D Law Group, APLC.
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Charles Johnson filed four motions to compel discovery against defendant B&D Law Group, APLC. The motions were set for hearing on July 1, 2026. On June 19, 2026, a stipulation and order was filed requesting the hearing on the motions be continued for no more than 45 days to allow the parties to meet and confer and narrow the issues that will need to be addressed by the court. Unfortunately, Department 16’s calendar does not accommodate setting four 5
hearings within 45 days; it is currently setting hearings in November. Therefore, the court has taken these matters off calendar and set this matter for a Case Management Conference on Tuesday, August 18, 2026, at 3:00 p.m., in Department 16. The parties can inform the court of their progress resolving the issues on the motions at that time. If numerous issues remain, the court is inclined to order a discovery referee. If only a few issues remain, the court will assess its law and motion calendars in order to promptly re-set the motions.
4. 25CV07804, Brett v. Erlach
This matter is on calendar for the demurrer of Defendant Raymond N. Stella Erlach, as Successor Trustee of the Brett Family Trust to the complaint filed by Plaintiff Mastaneh O. Brett. This matter is also on calendar for Defendant’s motion to strike portions of the complaint. On June 17, 2026, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the demurrer and motion to strike are MOOT.
6