Reversing the state appellate court’s majority opinion is necessary, as requiring courts to impose sanctions only under the Discovery Act’s specific provisions would hamper courts’ abilities to address such pervasive discovery abuse, he added.
“It’s amazing what the city engaged in here and the kind of fraud and extortion that they tried to perpetuate to cover up, not just the discovery abuse, but frankly their crimes in this case,” Poon argued, adding that to this day, the city still refuses to accept responsibility for those abuses and scapegoats others.
The city’s counsel, Kathryn L. McCann of Annaguey McCann LLP, contended that reversing the majority’s decision could open up the floodgates and cause litigants to bring any motions to court at any time, notwithstanding the procedures under the Discovery Act’s method-specific provisions, which first require litigants to identify some form of abuse.
Litigants then must file a motion to compel, which the court will determine and later issue sanctions; if that order is violated, further nonmonetary sanctions are available, like evidentiary or terminating sanctions. The process is gradual, as it’s “intended to put a chokehold on a litigant, to remind them to hit the brakes,” McCann said.
