Motion for protective order; Motion for monetary sanctions
Plaintiffs’ counsel does specify the amount requested in fees and Defendants do not address, and have therefore not shown, substantial justification in bringing this motion. The court finds fees and costs of $1,750 reasonable.
5. Conclusion and Order Plaintiffs have established that their complaint alleges a real property claim which is probably valid. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is DENIED. Sanctions are granted in Plaintiffs’ favor in the amount of $1,750. Plaintiffs’ counsel is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling and in compliance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.
2. 24CV02519, Bohanan v. City of Santa Rosa
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.060(a) and (b)(5) and 2031.285, defendant City of Santa Rosa (“City”) moves for a protective order regarding inadvertently produced privileged ESI. The City seeks to have Plaintiff Lucas Bohanan (“Plaintiff”) return the inadvertently disclosed privileged documents Bates marked DEF_000184460–85, DEF000146812– 14, and DEF000140301–03, provide written confirmation to the City that these documents have either been destroyed or returned to the City, 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.
The City also moves for monetary sanctions pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.060 and 2023.030(a), against Plaintiff and his counsel of record for fees associated with bringing this motion in the amount of $12,136.00.
1. Protective Order “When an inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of documents, tangible things, places, or electronically stored information has been demanded, the party to whom the demand has been directed, and any other party or affected person, may promptly move for a protective order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060(a).) “The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or other person from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (CCP section 2031.060(b).)
2. Clawback procedure If electronically stored information produced in discovery is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as attorney work product, the party making the claim may notify any party that received the information of the claim and the basis for the claim. (CCP section 2031.285(a).) After being notified of a claim of privilege or of protection under subdivision (a), a party that received the information “shall immediately sequester the information and either return the specified information and any copies that may exist or present the information to the court conditionally under seal for a determination of the claim.” (CCP section 2031.285(b).)
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?”
If the receiving party contests the legitimacy of a claim of privilege or protection, he or she may seek a determination of the claim from the court by making a motion within 30 days of receiving the claim and presenting the information to the court conditionally under seal. (CCP section 2031.285(d)(2).) In the course of preparing responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, counsel for the City identified eleven documents containing privileged and/or sensitive information inadvertently produced. (Cleary decl., ¶4.)
On August 6, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel was notified that one of these documents was being clawed back. (Ibid.) On February 20, 2026, City’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel notifying them of the inadvertent disclosure of the ten new documents and re-identifying the eleventh document. (Id., ¶6.) 4
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.
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