Friday, July 10, 2026
Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Pro Per Might Be Entitled to Discovery-Abuse Sanction
Though Plaintiff Expended No Funds in Seeking Order for Production of Documents, Opinion Says Statute Might Require $1,000 Payment, Depending on Trial Court’s Factual Findings on Remand
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has held that a plaintiff might be entitled to monetary sanctions based on discovery abuses despite, as a pro per, having paid out no money to attorneys in pursuit of his successful effort to gain an order compelling the production of documents.
Justice Thomas A. Delaney pointed to Code of Civil Procedure §2023.050 which renders mandatory the granting of a $1,000 sanction if the requisite factual findings are made. The matter was remanded to the Orange Superior Court to determine if plaintiff Aziz Damak is entitled to an award of $1,000.
Orange Superior Court Judge Richard Y. Lee on May 22, 2023 granted Damak’s motion to compel responses by defendant Satraj Hospitality LLC and two related individuals to his form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for admissions, and requests for production of documents. However, he denied a requested award of sanctions.
Trial Judge’s Reasoning
Lee explained:
“[A]ttorneys or other self-represented litigants may not be awarded monetary discovery sanctions based on compensation for time and effort expended as a result of a misuse of the discovery process….
“Here, Plaintiff is self-represented. Plaintiff requests a monetary sanction in the amount of at least $1,000, for Defendants’ failure to communicate and respond to the discovery at issue, but does not specify how this amount is calculated. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff cannot be awarded monetary discovery sanctions to compensate for time and effort to bring these motions. Although Plaintiff can be awarded monetary sanctions for reasonable expenses actually incurred, Plaintiff does not state what expenses were actually incurred. Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiff was granted a fee waiver….Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for an award of monetary discovery sanctions.”
Damak—who is maintaining causes of action in connection with his former employment including one for retaliatory discharge—sought a writ of mandate to compel the granting of sanctions.
Delaney’s Opinion
Delaney said that Lee properly denied sanctions with respect to five of the six motions because Damak had incurred no monetary obligations in connection with them, but that $1,000 might be awardable under §2023.050 in connection with the motion to compel production.
That statute says that “a court shall impose a one-thousand-dollar ($1,000) sanction, payable to the requesting party” upon a finding of one or more of three circumstances. They include a lack of a response in “good faith to a request for the production of documents” and a failure to meet and confer in connection with the dispute.
The code section, effective Jan. 1, 2020, has undergone changes, including being amended by 2023 legislation to boost the amount from $250 to the current level.
Lee “made no mention” of §2023.050, Delaney noted, and thus “failed to even consider whether one or more of the relevant findings could be made under the circumstances,” meaning that the “denial of monetary sanctions was an abuse of discretion.”
‘Seeming Injustice’
He commented:
“We acknowledge the seeming injustice and Damak’s frustration with what he describes as a rule which ‘effectively grants represented parties a green light to ignore discovery obligations when facing a self-represented opponent.’ ”
The justice went on to say:
“Although the Legislature has not taken steps to specifically address the plight of self-represented litigants faced with discovery abuse, somewhat recent addition of section 2023.050…moves some monetary sanctions away from being purely compensatory in nature.”
Delaney set forth:
“With the sanctions expressly and exclusively linked to the sanctioned party’s or attorney’s behavior, rather than steps taken by the other side in enforcing compliance with discovery obligations, section 2023.050 is focused on deterring the abusive behavior irrespective of whether, and to what extent, it results in the incurring of costs by the other side.”
Lack of Civility
Delaney remarked that “[i]t would be remiss of us not to mention civility in this case,” saying that while discussions of that matter in appellate opinions have generally focused on “the way lawyers have treated each other, and on occasion in response to the way lawyers have treated the courts,” the instant appeal brings up the question of lawyers’ duties to pro pers opposing their clients.
“In the litigation realm, when a party is not represented by counsel, civility means treating that self-represented party with the same dignity, courtesy, and integrity due to another lawyer and the court,” he declared, faulting Hitendra Bhakta, an attorney in the City of Orange, for not meeting that standard.
The opinion recounts spurned efforts by Damak to obtain responses from the lawyer’s office to his communications regarding the ignored discovery requests
“Stonewalling the other side in such a manner, irrespective of any underlying intent or lack thereof, falls far short of conducting oneself with dignity, courtesy, and integrity,” Delaney said. “It also hinders bringing the action to trial, which in turn may negatively impact the opposing litigant’s obligations, including bringing an action to trial in a timely manner.”
In remanding, the opinion instructs the Orange Superior Court to “reconsider the monetary sanctions requests in accordance with section 2023.050 and this opinion, including our discussion of civility in the legal profession.”
The case is Damak v. Superior Court (Khanna), 2026 S.O.S. 2001.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company