Bill Text: CA SB235 | 2023-2024 | Regular Session | Introduced

California Senate Bill 235

NOTE: There are more recent revisions of this legislation. Read Latest Draft

Bill Title: Civil discovery.

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)

Status: (Passed) 2023-09-30 - Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 284, Statutes of 2023. [SB235 Detail]

Download: California-2023-SB235-Introduced.html

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2023–2024 REGULAR SESSION

Senate Bill

No. 235

Introduced by Senator Umberg

January 24, 2023

An act to amend Section 2023.050 to the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to civil actions.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 235, as introduced, Umberg. Civil discovery: sanctions.

Existing law requires a court to impose a $250 sanction against a party, person, or attorney upon findings that the party, person, or attorney (1) failed to respond in good faith to a document request, (2) produced the requested documents within 7 days of a motion to compel that is filed by the requesting party as a result of the other party, person, or attorney’s failure to respond in good faith, or (3) failed to meet and confer in person, by telephone, by letter, or other means of communication in writing, to resolve any dispute regarding the request. For the purposes of this provision existing law establishes a rebuttable presumption that a natural person acted in good faith if that person was not represented by an attorney in the action at the time sanctionable conduct occurred.

This bill would delete the requirement to impose a $250 sanction as specified above, and instead require a court to impose a $1000 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) intended to cause unnecessary delay by producing the requested documents within 7 days before the court was scheduled to a hear a motion to compel filed by the requesting party, and (3) failed to meet and confer in person, by telephone, by letter, or by other means of communication in writing, to resolve any dispute regarding the request. The bill would delete the provision establishing the rebuttable presumption described above.

Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: NO

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.

Section 2023.050 of the Code of Civil Procedure is amended to read:

2023.050.

(a) Notwithstanding any other law, ~~and in addition to any other sanctions imposed pursuant to this chapter,~~ a court shall impose a ~~two hundred and fifty dollar ($250)~~ one thousand dollar ($1000) 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 ~~any~~ all of the following:

(1) The party, person, or attorney did not timely respond ~~in good faith~~ to a request for the production of documents made pursuant to Section 2020.010, 2020.410, ~~2020.510, or 2025.210, or to an inspection demand made pursuant to Section 2031.010.~~ or 2020.510.

(2) The party, person, or ~~attorney produced~~ attorney’s 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, 2025.480, or 2031.320 that is filed by the requesting party as a result of the other party, person, or attorney’s failure to respond in good faith.~~ 2025.450 or 2025.480.

(3) The party, person, or attorney failed to confer in person, by telephone, letter, or other means of communication in writing, as defined in Section 250 of the Evidence Code, 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, person, or attorney against whom the sanction is proposed to be imposed and opportunity for that party, person, or attorney to be heard.

(e)For purposes of this section, there is a rebuttable presumption that a natural person acted in good faith if that person was not represented by an attorney in the action at the time the conduct that is sanctionable under subdivision (a) occurred. This presumption may only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence.