Retaliation
Discovery Sanctions Are Mandatory Under Section 2023.050 Despite No Costs
Updated
In Damak v. Superior Court, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a trial court erred by denying discovery sanctions outright without considering Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.050, which makes a $1,000 sanction mandatory on certain findings regardless of whether the moving party incurred any expenses. The court granted the writ petition in part, directing the trial court to reconsider the sanctions requests. The opinion was certified for publication.
Background
Aziz Damak sued his former employer in October 2023 over employment claims that included wage and hour, meal and rest period, retaliation, and wrongful discharge allegations. He obtained a fee waiver and represented himself throughout the case.
In July 2024, Damak propounded several sets of discovery on the defendants, including document production requests. Over the following months, the defendants served no responses, and their counsel never communicated with Damak about the outstanding discovery despite his repeated follow-up calls and a written notice.
By late November 2024, Damak filed fifteen motions to compel, each requesting monetary sanctions of at least $1,000. The trial court granted the motions and the nonmonetary relief but denied the sanctions, reasoning that Damak, as a self-represented party with a fee waiver, had not shown he incurred any actual expenses.
What the Court Held on Mandatory Sanctions
The Court of Appeal agreed that, under longstanding authority interpreting Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, a self-represented litigant generally may not recover monetary sanctions for time and effort, because such amounts are not “expenses actually incurred.” On that point, the trial court’s focus on incurred expenses was proper.
But the court found the trial judge overlooked a separate provision. Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.050, effective in 2020 and later amended, provides that “notwithstanding any other law,” a court shall impose a $1,000 sanction when it finds, among other things, that a party or attorney did not respond in good faith to a document request or failed to meet and confer about it.
Because section 2023.050 ties the sanction to the offending party’s conduct rather than the moving party’s costs, it applies regardless of whether the other side incurred any expenses. Reviewing the denial for abuse of discretion, the court held that applying the wrong legal standard—and ignoring section 2023.050 entirely—was error.
The $1,000 sanction under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.050 is mandatory when the court makes the requisite findings, and it applies even when the requesting party incurred no expenses. A trial court that fails to consider whether those findings can be made abuses its discretion.
What the Court Said on Civility
The court also addressed civility owed to self-represented litigants. It explained that civility is an ethical component of professionalism, not mere etiquette, and that attorneys must treat a self-represented party with the same dignity, courtesy, and integrity due to another lawyer or the court.
On the record before it, the court observed that defense counsel had not communicated with Damak about the discovery for more than ten months, which it described as stonewalling that falls short of those obligations. The court remanded for the trial court to consider whether sanctions under section 2023.050 are appropriate.
What This Means for You
This decision clarifies that the $1,000 discovery sanction under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.050 is mandatory once a court makes the required findings and does not depend on the requesting party having incurred expenses. It touches discovery disputes over document production, including those involving self-represented parties who cannot recover ordinary monetary sanctions tied to costs.
I write these summaries as general information about developments in California employment law. They are not legal advice and don’t create a mediator–client relationship. For guidance on a specific matter, consult a qualified attorney.