Chen Li vs. California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development

Summary: Defendant, Sarno's client, filed a motion seeking sanctions against plaintiff's attorney Sean Patrick and the plaintiff for refusing to produce documents in the case. The judge said documents should have been provided and "baseless objections" were made. Sarno sought up to $8550 in sanctions. The judge ruled documents must be produced and sanctions were appropriate, but the award would be $2000. The case was dismissed a week later.



From the Judge:

The defendant, a California government entity represented by the California Department of Justice, for which Cori Sarno works, noticed plaintiff's deposition and asked that documents be provided.

Plaintiff's attorney objected to every document request and refused to produce anything at the deposition. However, during the deposition the plaintiff testified under penalty of perjury that he possessed numerous documents responsive to the document requests.

Ms. Sarno's office demanded that these documents be produced. The plaintiff's attorney said he would decide what to provide "if appropriate". Plaintiff finally produced a mere 16 pages, which did not include all documents the plaintiff had testified existed.

Cori Sarno then asked for all documents, and a verification under penalty of perjury from the plaintiff that these were all the documents. Plaintiff's attorney refused, saying another request to produce documents was required for his client to provide a verification.

Attorney Sarno then propounded another request for documents.

Plaintiff's counsel then objected claiming the requests sought attorney privileged information and provided no documents.

Ms. Sarno asked for a privilege log identifying what documents were being withheld based on attorney privilege. The other attorney refused to provide anything.

Sarno then brought a motion to compel. The judge reviewed the situation and said the documents sought were "not complicated". Instead of seeking attorney privilege information, the requests sought things such as documents supporting the facts alleged in the complaint.

The judge said "all the documents" requested were relevant. The court found objections plaintiff's attorney had made to the requests were improper and did not have factual or legal support.

The judge said the following:

"Defendant has long attempted to obtain responsive documents that, in the Court's view, should have been provided. The responses that Plaintiff provided are hardly responses at all. Rather, they are primarily baseless objections and fail to indicate whether any documents beyond the 16 pages Plaintiff provided actually exist and whether Plaintiff will comply with the request as framed. While Plaintiff contends that Defendant did not sufficiently engage in meet-and-confer efforts, the Court disagrees. The Court concludes that Defendant has been quite patient, accommodating and diligent in attempting to obtain responses to which it was entitled."

Cori Sarno's office asked for up to $8550 in sanctions for legal time and costs incurred trying to get documents. The judge said sanctions were appropriate, but in the lesser amount of $2000.



From the Court File:

Attorney Cori Sarno from the California Department of Justice represents the defendant in this employment case.

The judge's tentative ruling was adopted as the final ruling of the court.

About one week after the judge ordered sanctions the lawsuit was dismissed.



Lawzilla Commentary:

In our opinion, from reviewing numerous orders, sanctions are rarely issued in Sacramento, and when they are the amount is typically small.

$2000 is a huge amount of sanctions to be awarded by a Sacramento judge.

The judge really lauded the work by Ms. Sarno. On the other hand, the judge only awarded her about 25 percent of the fees and costs she requested.

Would you hire Cori Sarno to be your attorney?

Since Ms. Sarno works for the state she cannot be hired. Note, we do not regularly update attorney information so check with the State Bar to see if she has gone into private practice.

The comments by the judge are striking. We review many orders and rarely is an attorney commended like Ms. Sarno was. The traits referred to by the judge we see as good traits to have as an attorney.

Although the judge did reduce the amount of sanctions sought by about 75 percent, the judge did not seem to say this was because of overbilling. Rather, the judge said "an appropriate amount for sanctions to compensate Defendant for bringing this motion." Speculation on our part is a portion of the $8550 included other work, such as the deposition, where documents were not produced.

$2000 is still a lot of money. The court's case file indicates the matter was dismissed about a week after the ruling. We do not know the reason for the dismissal, if there was a settlement, or any settlement terms.

Cori Sarno was admitted to the California Bar in 2004. Bar Number 230559.

California Department of Justice
1300 I Street Suite 125
Sacramento, California 95814

Law School: McGeorge School of Law

Sean Patrick - Our review of the other attorney in the Li v. California case.