California courts take seriously their rules against gamesmanship in pretrial discovery – as one lawyer recently learned. A stiff sanction, nearly $10,000, was the price he paid for refusing to turn on his laptop’s webcam, despite multiple requests from the questioning attorney, in a deposition where his on-camera client was clearly looking for help answering questions.
In Agnone v. Agnone, No. B321252 (Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., May 30, 2025), a unanimous California appellate court said that it didn’t matter whether the lawyer was in fact coaching his client or not. What does matter, it said, is that the lawyer’s gamesmanship prevented opposing counsel from developing evidence of possible coaching during the deposition. The court said it had “no trouble” affirming the trial court’s decision to impose monetary sanctions for what was, admittedly, an unusual form of discovery abuse that plainly frustrated the deposition’s truth-seeking function.
A stiff sanction, nearly $10,000, was the price he paid for refusing to turn on his laptop’s webcam, despite multiple requests from the questioning attorney, in a deposition where his on-camera client was clearly looking for help answering questions.
During a remote deposition in a domestic relations case, the questioning lawyer repeatedly asked opposing counsel to turn on his laptop webcam, which he refused to do.
“Every time that I ask a question, your client is looking upward to you for feedback,” the questioning lawyer remarked during the deposition. Opposing counsel refused the request, which he justified as follows: “I don’t need to have my webcam on.” This remark was apparently based on opposing counsel’s belief that the subpoena and deposition notice obliged him to merely possess a webcam-equipped laptop but not to actually turn it on during the deposition. The lawyer also declined the questioning attorney’s alternative request that both he and his client appear together on camera.
Opposing counsel punctuated his obstructive behavior by insulting the questioning attorney. “You know, a normal confident lawyer would go forward and take questions and answers today rather than continue to interrupt counsel and argue with me now for 25 minutes,” he remarked.
The questioning attorney terminated the deposition, later filing a motion to compel and a motion for sanctions. Although the case eventually settled, the questioning attorney persisted in his bid for sanctions, alleging that opposing counsel had engaged in deposition conduct that constituted a sanctionable “misuse of the discovery process.” The trial court agreed, imposing $9,981 in monetary sanctions. This is the order affirmed by the California Court of Appeals in its May 30 Angone v. Angone ruling.
California Courts Have Powerful Tool to Curb Discovery Abuse
The Angone case highlights recent skirmishing in California regarding the scope of a trial court’s authority to sanction behavior amounting to “misuse of the discovery process.” California’s 2004 Civil Discovery Act, Sections 2023.010 – 2023.050, defines “misuse of the discovery process” by enumerating a wide range of all-too-familiar discovery abuses:
- persisting without substantial justification in an attempt to obtain information or materials that are outside the scope of permissible discovery
- improper use of a discovery method
- engaging in discovery that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense
- failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery
- making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery
- making an evasive response to discovery
- disobeying a court order to provide discovery
- making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery
- Failing to confer in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve discovery disputes informally
There was, until recently, an open question in California whether trial courts had the authority to impose sanctions for these behaviors and other discovery abuses not specifically mentioned in Section 2023.010. In a case examining a trial court’s decision to impose $2.5 million in discovery sanctions against the City of Los Angeles, the California Supreme Court ruled last year that Section 2023.010 supplied the necessary authority for the imposition of “misuse of the discovery process” sanctions. The City of Los Angeles had argued (and an appellate court agreed) that the Civil Discovery Act conferred on trial courts only a limited authority to sanction the misuse of certain discovery methods but no general authority to sanction other kinds of discovery misconduct such as the abuses set out in Section 2023.010.
The city’s argument was rejected in City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 17 Cal.5th 46, 324 Cal.Rptr. 3d 410, 553 P.3d 1194 (2024), paving the way for the appellate court’s ruling in Angone. Along the way, the Angone panel turned back the contention that Section 2023.010 sanctions are limited to “egregious” instances of discovery abuse.
Sanctions for deposition misbehavior is a topic we’re frequently discussed here. Other conduct known to attract negative attention – and monetary sanctions – from courts includes failing to appear at a properly noticed deposition, obstructing attempts to set deposition dates, engaging in uncivil and unprofessional behavior during depositions, witness coaching during depositions, and interjecting baseless objections or “speaking objections.”
