Doe v. United States Swimming, Inc.
200 Cal. App. 4th 1424
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- U.S. Swimming appeals an October 15, 2010 order directing payment of $5,250 in monetary sanctions for discovery abuses and failure to comply with an August 6, 2010 discovery order.
- Plaintiff Jane Doe moved to compel compliance with the August 6 order and to sanction discovery abuses related to heavily redacted documents produced by U.S. Swimming.
- The August 6 order required production of the deponent and documents, with redactions limited to identifying information of complainants and accused coaches.
- U.S. Swimming produced heavily redacted documents and opposed the motion to compel, arguing substantial justification and offering to produce unredacted versions for in camera review if needed.
- The superior court found no substantial justification, ordered compliance with redacted production, and awarded $5,250 in monetary sanctions; on appeal, U.S. Swimming challenged the sanction and absence of in camera review; the court upheld the sanction and limited review to the monetary sanction issue.
- The court noted the appealability issue and held that only the monetary sanction portion over $5,000 was reviewable on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sanctions were proper without in camera review | Doe argues noncompliance with August order and excessive redactions justify sanctions | U.S. Swimming contends it complied and in camera review would show compliance | Yes; sanctions upheld, no abuse of discretion without in camera review |
| Whether the appeal is properly limited to the monetary sanction | Doe asserts broad appeal on all aspects of the order | U.S. Swimming seeks review of the monetary sanction portion only | Yes; appellate review limited to monetary sanction over $5,000 |
| Whether U.S. Swimming reasonably interpreted the protective order | Doe contends redactions were excessive and not within protective scope | U.S. Swimming claims privacy protections justified broad redactions under FERPA-like reasoning | No; court rejected expansive interpretation of identifying information and affirmed sanctions for over-redaction |
Key Cases Cited
- Griset v. Fair Political Practices Comm., 25 Cal.4th 688 (Cal. 2001) (appealability; abuse of discretion standard for sanctions)
- Sherman v. Standard Mines Co., 166 Cal. 524 (Cal. 1913) (general rule on appealability of nonappealable orders)
- Collins v. Corse, 8 Cal.2d 123 (Cal. 1936) (duty to dismiss nonappealable appeals; limits of appellate review)
- Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem, 128 Cal.App.4th 262 (Cal. App. 2005) (intertwining of monetary sanctions with terminating sanctions on appeal)
- Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.3d 652 (Cal. 1975) (privacy considerations in discovery protective orders)
- Davis v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.App.4th 1008 (Cal. App. 1992) (privacy and protective order considerations in discovery sanctions)
- Nader Automotive Group, LLC v. New Motor Vehicle Bd., 178 Cal.App.4th 1478 (Cal. App. 2009) (meaning of substantial justification in sanctions context; law and fact)