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

Summary: Defendant filed a motion seeking sanctions against attorney Sean Patrick and his client for refusing to produce documents in the case. The judge said documents should have been provided and "baseless objections" were made. Defendant 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 noticed the deposition for Mr. Patrick's client and asked that documents be provided.

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

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

The defense attorney asked for all documents, and a verification under penalty of perjury from the plaintiff that these were all the documents. Sean Patrick refused, saying another request to produce documents was required for his client to provide a verification.

Defendant propounded another request for documents.

Attorney Sean Patrick then objected claiming the requests sought attorney privileged information and provided no documents.

Defendant's attorney asked for a privilege log identifying what documents were being withheld based on attorney privilege. Sean Patrick refused to provide anything.

Defendant 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 Patrick 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."

Defendant 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 Sean Patrick represents the plaintiff 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 statements from the judge suggest to us that the conduct of attorney Sean Patrick, referred to by the judge, went beyond fair and aggressive representation and was improper and sanctionable misconduct.

Would you hire Sean Patrick to be your attorney?

We only have this one ruling to make an evaluation. The statements by the judge are not good, but need to be considered in the context of this is just one ruling.

The judge recites a long pattern of what we view as gamesmanship by Mr. Patrick that may not have served his client.

In our opinion quality, competent, and professional attorneys work out document requests like this. Attorneys can exchange relevant documents at the outset of the case.

Presumably, Mr. Patrick had these documents at the outset when drafting the lawsuit. As we see it, they are the types of documents an attorney provides, without even being requested, because they support his client's case and can lead to a good resolution.

Fortunately for attorney Patrick and his client, he was able to reduce the requested sanctions by more than 75 percent. That is a positive result. $2000 is still a lot of money. The court's file reflects the case was dismissed soon after the ruling.

It is our assumption the dismissal followed a settlement. Terms of settlements are often confidential and no settlement is listed in the court file, so we do not know what happened. But one has to wonder: did the court ordered sanctions lead to a quick settlement that prevented the plaintiff from potentially getting a better outcome at trial?

Sean Patrick was admitted to the California Bar in 2012. Bar Number 287544.

PO Box 2822
Rocklin, California 95677

Law School: McGeorge School of Law

Cori Sarno - Our review of the other attorney in the Li v. California case.