There should be a two-step process, Poon said, with the first being to first look at the general authorization in Section 2023.030, which contains language empowering courts to impose sanctions. The section reiterates that courts “may impose” monetary sanctions for misuse of the discovery process, as defined under 2023.010, he added.
The next step is to look at the method-specific provisions for any further restrictions that might apply in a particular case as to the type, scope or order in which sanctions are imposed, he said.
Associate Justice Martin Jenkins asked what to do if one cannot find a method-specific provision for something like evidence spoliation. Poon replied that while it’s true evidence spoliation isn’t found in any method-specific chapters of the Discovery Act, that doesn’t remove courts’ abilities to deal with the type of evidence spoliation executed by officials with the City Attorney’s Office in the underlying case.
When asked by Associate Justice Goodwin Liu what Section 2023.030 authorizes for sanctions, Poon replied that the authorization isn’t restricted to only method-specific provisions, noting courts can’t impose evidentiary sanctions or terminate sanctions unless they first impose monetary sanctions.
