Amended IN Senate March 20, 2019 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 20192020 REGULAR SESSION Senate Bill No. 17Introduced by Senator UmbergDecember 03, 2018 An act relating to civil discovery. to add Section 2023.050 to the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to civil actions.LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGESTSB 17, as amended, Umberg. Civil discovery: sanctions.The Civil Discovery Act authorizes a party to a civil action to obtain discovery, as specified, by inspecting documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession of any other party to the action. Existing law authorizes a court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, to impose sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process, as specified.This bill would require a court, after notice to any party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for a hearing, to impose a $1,000 sanction against a party, person, or attorney upon findings that the party, person, or attorney (1) failed to timely respond to a document request, (2) did so with the intent to cause unnecessary delay by producing the requested documents within 7 days of a motion to compel, and (3) failed to meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by letter to resolve any dispute regarding the request. The bill would authorize the court to require an attorney to report the sanction in writing to the State Bar within 30 days of the imposition of the sanction. The bill would also authorize the court to excuse the imposition of the sanction if the court makes written findings that the person subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.Existing law authorizes a court to impose sanctions on a party, person, or attorney in connection with conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process in a civil action, as specified. This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would require a court to impose sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who engages in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process in a civil action.Digest Key Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: NOYES Local Program: NO Bill TextThe people of the State of California do enact as follows:SECTION 1. Section 2023.050 is added to the Code of Civil Procedure, immediately following Section 2023.040, to read:2023.050. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, 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 all of the following:(1) The party, person, or attorney did not timely respond to a request for the production of documents made pursuant to Section 2020.010, 2020.410, or 2020.510.(2) The party, person, or attorneys failure to timely respond was intended by the party, person, or attorney to cause unnecessary delay by producing the requested documents within seven days before the court was scheduled to hear a motion to compel production of the records pursuant to Section 2025.450 or 2025.480.(3) The party, person, or attorney failed to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with the party or attorney requesting the documents in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning the request.(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (3) of subdivision (o) of Section 6068 of the Business and professions Code, the court may, in its discretion, require an attorney who is sanctioned pursuant to subdivision (a) to report the sanction, in writing, to the State Bar within 30 days of the imposition of the sanction.(c) The court may excuse the imposition of the sanction required by subdivision (a) if the court makes written findings that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.(d) Sanctions pursuant to this section shall be imposed only after notice to the party against whom the sanction is proposed to be imposed and opportunity for that party to be heard.SECTION 1.It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would require a court to impose sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who engages in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process in a civil action.
Amended IN Senate March 20, 2019 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 20192020 REGULAR SESSION Senate Bill No. 17Introduced by Senator UmbergDecember 03, 2018 An act relating to civil discovery. to add Section 2023.050 to the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to civil actions.LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGESTSB 17, as amended, Umberg. Civil discovery: sanctions.The Civil Discovery Act authorizes a party to a civil action to obtain discovery, as specified, by inspecting documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession of any other party to the action. Existing law authorizes a court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, to impose sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process, as specified.This bill would require a court, after notice to any party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for a hearing, to impose a $1,000 sanction against a party, person, or attorney upon findings that the party, person, or attorney (1) failed to timely respond to a document request, (2) did so with the intent to cause unnecessary delay by producing the requested documents within 7 days of a motion to compel, and (3) failed to meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by letter to resolve any dispute regarding the request. The bill would authorize the court to require an attorney to report the sanction in writing to the State Bar within 30 days of the imposition of the sanction. The bill would also authorize the court to excuse the imposition of the sanction if the court makes written findings that the person subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.Existing law authorizes a court to impose sanctions on a party, person, or attorney in connection with conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process in a civil action, as specified. This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would require a court to impose sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who engages in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process in a civil action.Digest Key Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: NOYES Local Program: NO
Amended IN Senate March 20, 2019
Amended IN Senate March 20, 2019
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 20192020 REGULAR SESSION
Senate Bill No. 17
Introduced by Senator UmbergDecember 03, 2018
Introduced by Senator Umberg
December 03, 2018
An act relating to civil discovery. to add Section 2023.050 to the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to civil actions.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
## LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 17, as amended, Umberg. Civil discovery: sanctions.
The Civil Discovery Act authorizes a party to a civil action to obtain discovery, as specified, by inspecting documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession of any other party to the action. Existing law authorizes a court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, to impose sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process, as specified.This bill would require a court, after notice to any party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for a hearing, to impose a $1,000 sanction against a party, person, or attorney upon findings that the party, person, or attorney (1) failed to timely respond to a document request, (2) did so with the intent to cause unnecessary delay by producing the requested documents within 7 days of a motion to compel, and (3) failed to meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by letter to resolve any dispute regarding the request. The bill would authorize the court to require an attorney to report the sanction in writing to the State Bar within 30 days of the imposition of the sanction. The bill would also authorize the court to excuse the imposition of the sanction if the court makes written findings that the person subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.Existing law authorizes a court to impose sanctions on a party, person, or attorney in connection with conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process in a civil action, as specified. This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would require a court to impose sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who engages in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process in a civil action.
The Civil Discovery Act authorizes a party to a civil action to obtain discovery, as specified, by inspecting documents, tangible things, land or other property, and electronically stored information in the possession of any other party to the action. Existing law authorizes a court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, to impose sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process, as specified.
This bill would require a court, after notice to any party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for a hearing, to impose a $1,000 sanction against a party, person, or attorney upon findings that the party, person, or attorney (1) failed to timely respond to a document request, (2) did so with the intent to cause unnecessary delay by producing the requested documents within 7 days of a motion to compel, and (3) failed to meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by letter to resolve any dispute regarding the request. The bill would authorize the court to require an attorney to report the sanction in writing to the State Bar within 30 days of the imposition of the sanction. The bill would also authorize the court to excuse the imposition of the sanction if the court makes written findings that the person subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.
Existing law authorizes a court to impose sanctions on a party, person, or attorney in connection with conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process in a civil action, as specified.
This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would require a court to impose sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who engages in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process in a civil action.
## Digest Key
## Bill Text
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:SECTION 1. Section 2023.050 is added to the Code of Civil Procedure, immediately following Section 2023.040, to read:2023.050. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, 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 all of the following:(1) The party, person, or attorney did not timely respond to a request for the production of documents made pursuant to Section 2020.010, 2020.410, or 2020.510.(2) The party, person, or attorneys failure to timely respond was intended by the party, person, or attorney to cause unnecessary delay by producing the requested documents within seven days before the court was scheduled to hear a motion to compel production of the records pursuant to Section 2025.450 or 2025.480.(3) The party, person, or attorney failed to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with the party or attorney requesting the documents in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning the request.(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (3) of subdivision (o) of Section 6068 of the Business and professions Code, the court may, in its discretion, require an attorney who is sanctioned pursuant to subdivision (a) to report the sanction, in writing, to the State Bar within 30 days of the imposition of the sanction.(c) The court may excuse the imposition of the sanction required by subdivision (a) if the court makes written findings that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.(d) Sanctions pursuant to this section shall be imposed only after notice to the party against whom the sanction is proposed to be imposed and opportunity for that party to be heard.SECTION 1.It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would require a court to impose sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who engages in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process in a civil action.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
## The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 2023.050 is added to the Code of Civil Procedure, immediately following Section 2023.040, to read:2023.050. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, 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 all of the following:(1) The party, person, or attorney did not timely respond to a request for the production of documents made pursuant to Section 2020.010, 2020.410, or 2020.510.(2) The party, person, or attorneys failure to timely respond was intended by the party, person, or attorney to cause unnecessary delay by producing the requested documents within seven days before the court was scheduled to hear a motion to compel production of the records pursuant to Section 2025.450 or 2025.480.(3) The party, person, or attorney failed to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with the party or attorney requesting the documents in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning the request.(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (3) of subdivision (o) of Section 6068 of the Business and professions Code, the court may, in its discretion, require an attorney who is sanctioned pursuant to subdivision (a) to report the sanction, in writing, to the State Bar within 30 days of the imposition of the sanction.(c) The court may excuse the imposition of the sanction required by subdivision (a) if the court makes written findings that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.(d) Sanctions pursuant to this section shall be imposed only after notice to the party against whom the sanction is proposed to be imposed and opportunity for that party to be heard.
SECTION 1. Section 2023.050 is added to the Code of Civil Procedure, immediately following Section 2023.040, to read:
### SECTION 1.
2023.050. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, 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 all of the following:(1) The party, person, or attorney did not timely respond to a request for the production of documents made pursuant to Section 2020.010, 2020.410, or 2020.510.(2) The party, person, or attorneys failure to timely respond was intended by the party, person, or attorney to cause unnecessary delay by producing the requested documents within seven days before the court was scheduled to hear a motion to compel production of the records pursuant to Section 2025.450 or 2025.480.(3) The party, person, or attorney failed to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with the party or attorney requesting the documents in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning the request.(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (3) of subdivision (o) of Section 6068 of the Business and professions Code, the court may, in its discretion, require an attorney who is sanctioned pursuant to subdivision (a) to report the sanction, in writing, to the State Bar within 30 days of the imposition of the sanction.(c) The court may excuse the imposition of the sanction required by subdivision (a) if the court makes written findings that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.(d) Sanctions pursuant to this section shall be imposed only after notice to the party against whom the sanction is proposed to be imposed and opportunity for that party to be heard.
2023.050. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, 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 all of the following:(1) The party, person, or attorney did not timely respond to a request for the production of documents made pursuant to Section 2020.010, 2020.410, or 2020.510.(2) The party, person, or attorneys failure to timely respond was intended by the party, person, or attorney to cause unnecessary delay by producing the requested documents within seven days before the court was scheduled to hear a motion to compel production of the records pursuant to Section 2025.450 or 2025.480.(3) The party, person, or attorney failed to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with the party or attorney requesting the documents in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning the request.(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (3) of subdivision (o) of Section 6068 of the Business and professions Code, the court may, in its discretion, require an attorney who is sanctioned pursuant to subdivision (a) to report the sanction, in writing, to the State Bar within 30 days of the imposition of the sanction.(c) The court may excuse the imposition of the sanction required by subdivision (a) if the court makes written findings that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.(d) Sanctions pursuant to this section shall be imposed only after notice to the party against whom the sanction is proposed to be imposed and opportunity for that party to be heard.
2023.050. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, 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 all of the following:(1) The party, person, or attorney did not timely respond to a request for the production of documents made pursuant to Section 2020.010, 2020.410, or 2020.510.(2) The party, person, or attorneys failure to timely respond was intended by the party, person, or attorney to cause unnecessary delay by producing the requested documents within seven days before the court was scheduled to hear a motion to compel production of the records pursuant to Section 2025.450 or 2025.480.(3) The party, person, or attorney failed to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with the party or attorney requesting the documents in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning the request.(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (3) of subdivision (o) of Section 6068 of the Business and professions Code, the court may, in its discretion, require an attorney who is sanctioned pursuant to subdivision (a) to report the sanction, in writing, to the State Bar within 30 days of the imposition of the sanction.(c) The court may excuse the imposition of the sanction required by subdivision (a) if the court makes written findings that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.(d) Sanctions pursuant to this section shall be imposed only after notice to the party against whom the sanction is proposed to be imposed and opportunity for that party to be heard.
2023.050. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, 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 all of the following:
(1) The party, person, or attorney did not timely respond to a request for the production of documents made pursuant to Section 2020.010, 2020.410, or 2020.510.
(2) The party, person, or attorneys failure to timely respond was intended by the party, person, or attorney to cause unnecessary delay by producing the requested documents within seven days before the court was scheduled to hear a motion to compel production of the records pursuant to Section 2025.450 or 2025.480.
(3) The party, person, or attorney failed to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with the party or attorney requesting the documents in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning the request.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (3) of subdivision (o) of Section 6068 of the Business and professions Code, the court may, in its discretion, require an attorney who is sanctioned pursuant to subdivision (a) to report the sanction, in writing, to the State Bar within 30 days of the imposition of the sanction.
(c) The court may excuse the imposition of the sanction required by subdivision (a) if the court makes written findings that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.
(d) Sanctions pursuant to this section shall be imposed only after notice to the party against whom the sanction is proposed to be imposed and opportunity for that party to be heard.
It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would require a court to impose sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who engages in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process in a civil action.