| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion to Compel Discovery; Motion for Sanctions
This matter is set for hearing on Respondent/Wife’s 10/22/2025 Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Sanctions. On 1/26/2026 Petitioner/Father filed the Declaration of Sean Fisher, Esq. in opposition to the Motion to Compel, together with a Memorandum of Points and Authorities. At the request of Wife, the matter was referred to the Court’s Discovery Facilitator Program. On 12/22/2025, Kathleen Merrill, Esq. was appointed Discovery Facilitator for this matter, and on 3/24/2026 Ms. Merrill filed her Report & Recommendations in which she recommended Wife’s motion to compel be denied for numerous reasons and that Wife be ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $10,000 for Husband’s attorneys’ fees.
On 4/23/2026 Wife filed Respondent’s Reply to Petitioner’s Response and to the Report of the Discovery Referee. Wife suggests that her failures to abide by the Code of Civil Procedure are merely “technical defects,” which she is prepared to cure. The Court finds this to be too little, too late and fails to consider all of the time that was wasted, and attorneys’ fees expended, dealing with Wife’s failure to conduct discovery in accordance with the CCP. The Reply also states that Respondent did not misuse the discovery process. The Court disagrees, as evident by the failure to abide by the CCP requirement. Finally, the Court agrees with Husband that trial was needlessly delayed for months, to his prejudice.
On 4/27/2026 Husband filed a Reply to Respondent’s Opposition to Discovery Facilitator Report and Recommendations in which he agrees with the Report & Recommendations.
Having reviewed the written submissions by the parties, including the underlying discovery requests, motion to compel, opposition to the motion to compel, the underlying discovery requests, as well as the Discovery Facilitator’s Report & Recommendations, the Court orders as follows:
1. Wife’s motion to compel is denied.
2. Wife shall pay to Husband his necessary and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with defending against the motion to compel, according to proof.
a. Counsel for Husband shall serve and lodge with the court billing statements that detail the work performed, reflect the work performed, time spent and amount charged, with only privileged information redacted by 6/26/2026.
b. Both parties are ordered to submit updated Income & Expense Declarations to the Court by 6/26/2026.
3. This matter is continued to 7/10/2026 for hearing to on the amount of sanctions Wife is to pay to Husband.
SO ORDERED. Counsel for Father to prepare the order.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Any party who disagrees with the Court's tentative ruling and wishes to have oral argument must notify the Court at (415) 444-7046 and opposing counsel (or if the opposing party is self- represented, notice must be given directly to the opposing party) of their intent to appear at the hearing for oral argument by 4:00 pm on the court day before the hearing, as required by Marin County Superior Court Family Law Local Rules 7.12(B) and (C). Notice may be given by telephone or in person. Absent proper notice, no oral argument will be permitted. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling will become the order of the Court.
Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, persons who requested oral argument must appear for the hearing in person or remotely via Zoom, in accordance with the Court website guidelines. If appearing remotely via Zoom (video or telephone), you are responsible for ensuring you have adequate connectivity; the Court may proceed in a party’s absence if technical issues arise. Proper Zoom etiquette and courtroom decorum are required, and failure to comply may result in the hearing being halted and an order to appear in person being made.