Price-Simms v. Gallegos CA1/1, A160893

Background

Price-Simms sued former employees Christopher Firle and Chantal Gallegos for embezzling over $1.6 million, alleging conversion, receiving stolen property, breach of fiduciary duty, and constructive fraud.
Price-Simms served subpoenas on banks for Gallegos's account records dating back to 2015; Gallegos objected and moved for a protective order under Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.420.
Meet-and-confer communications between counsel deteriorated: Price-Simms offered a proposed protective order and asserted a legitimate need for banking records; Gallegos’s counsel declined to produce records and proceeded to file the motion.
The trial court denied the protective-order motion, found insufficient meet-and-confer, and imposed discovery sanctions jointly against Gallegos and her counsel; initial tentative award $9,437.50, reduced to a final award of $7,550.
Gallegos and her counsel appealed only the sanctions order; the Court of Appeal affirmed, finding no substantial justification and that counsel failed to show he advised against filing the motion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Price-Simms)	Defendant's Argument (Gallegos)	Held
Whether sanctions are required for unsuccessfully opposing a motion for protective order	Statutes mandate sanctions for unsuccessful motions/oppositions and for failure to confer; Price-Simms sought fees incurred opposing the motion	The motion was reasonable and protected privacy; substantial justification existed to seek protection for bank records	Court held statutes require sanctions unless substantial justification shown; Gallegos failed to show substantial justification, so sanctions proper
Whether parties reasonably and in good faith conferred about discovery	Price-Simms contended Gallegos and counsel terminated meaningful meet-and-confer and refused reasonable compromise (despite offer to draft protective order)	Gallegos argued extensive dialogue and good-faith conferral, making sanctions unjust	Court found lack of meaningful meet-and-confer; failure to raise this issue on appeal forfeited it and supported sanctions
Whether counsel may be sanctioned absent proof he advised against the conduct	Price-Simms argued counsel failed to show he counseled against filing; burden shifts to attorney once misuse shown	Counsel argued he acted in good faith and attempted to resolve; asserted financial hardship and pro bono-like representation	Court held attorney did not meet burden to show he advised against the conduct; sanctions against counsel affirmed
Whether the $7,550 amount was excessive	Price-Simms submitted declarations documenting hours and rates and sought $11,875	Gallegos offered no evidentiary challenge to hours/rates and claimed award was unfair and financially burdensome	Court found trial judge’s reduction to $7,550 reasonable, defendants submitted no counter-evidence, and appellate review disclosed no abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc., 200 Cal.App.4th 1424 (2011) (defines "substantial justification" for sanctions context)
Corns v. Miller, 181 Cal.App.3d 195 (1986) (shifts burden to attorney to prove they did not counsel discovery abuse)
Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 531 (2017) (privacy interests weighed against discovery need using invasion seriousness and alternatives)
Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.4th 360 (2007) (protective orders can mitigate privacy concerns when intrusion is limited)
Diepenbrock v. Brown, 208 Cal.App.4th 743 (2012) (privilege-based objections may avoid sanctions where law unsettled; distinguished here)
Parker v. Wolters Kluwer United States, Inc., 149 Cal.App.4th 285 (2007) (no "first‑time" exemption from sanctions)
Beasley v. Wells Fargo Bank, 235 Cal.App.3d 1407 (1991) (trial court discretion in assessing reasonableness of attorney fees reviewed for abuse)
Shamblin v. Brattain, 44 Cal.3d 474 (1988) (abuse of discretion standard requires showing decision was beyond bounds of reason)