Townsend v. Superior Court

Summary

        The C.A. 2nd has ruled that discovery sanctions could not be awarded to parties who were not the discovery proponents but merely joined a motion to compel.

        Maria Townsend filed a lawsuit against EMC Mortgage, Westfall Realtors, John and Patricia Moffet, Prudential California Realty, and Fidelity National Title Co. seeking to compel the sale of her residence. Townsend's deposition was taken by EMC Mortgage and Westfall Realtors. During the course of the deposition, Townsend refused to answer certain questions. EMC and Westfall moved to compel Townsend to answer the questions and for sanctions. Townsend objected to the motion, claiming there was no evidence of an attempt to informally resolve this matter prior to bringing the motion. The Moffets, Prudential, and Fidelity joined in the motion to compel and for sanctions. The trial court concluding that the informal resolution requirement was complied with when EMC and Westfall attempted to persuade Townsend's attorney to counsel her to answer the questions at the deposition. The motion to compel was granted and sanctions were awarded to all the parties who had joined the motion. Townsend petitioned for a writ of mandate.

        The C.A. 2nd granted the writ. Objections and argument at the deposition did not constitute a serious effort to resolve the discovery dispute informally. The trial court erred in ruling that EMC and Westfall had met their burden in this area. "Monetary sanctions are designed to recompense those who are the victims of misuse of the Discovery Act." Sanctions may be imposed against a party who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel. EMC and Westfall noticed Townsend's deposition and served motion to compel. Because the remaining parties did not notice the deposition, participate in the deposition, or serve motion to compel, they were not entitled to a sanctions award.

— Brian Cardile