Would compelling definitive answer be more preferential?

Question

What is chance in percentages, pros and cons of asking court for sanctions on defendant: issue and terminating? 
 
Hospice fraud case, referral by hospital. Defendant hospital did not provide record of who exactly did referral. Fraud was based on fake or erroneous test results, communicated by non-existent person. 
Defendant's counsel's tactic is balancing between objections, references to records that were not provided by defendant. Some discovery responses are verified by defendant, some by counsel, or objected entirely. 
Would compelling definitive answer be more preferential, instead of getting into paper pushing who exactly hided records?

Tim Akpinar · Answer

One would need to review your file more thoroughly to answer question meaningfully. Sanctions can be effective, but if they are not granted, it could increase ill-will of parties toward one another. Good luck

James L. Arrasmith · Answer

Under California law, compelling a definitive answer through sanctions can be an effective strategy in certain situations, but it is important to carefully consider the pros and cons before pursuing this approach. 
 
Pros: 
1. Obtaining crucial information: If the defendant has failed to provide essential records or information, such as the identity of the person who made the referral, compelling a definitive answer can help uncover key evidence to support your case. 
 
2. Saving time and resources: By compelling a definitive answer, you may avoid prolonged paper pushing and unnecessary delays in the discovery process. 
 
3. Demonstrating the seriousness of the matter: Seeking sanctions can show the defendant and the court that you are committed to uncovering the truth and holding the defendant accountable for their actions. 
 
Cons: 
1. Potential for antagonizing the defendant: Pursuing sanctions may escalate tensions between the parties and make it more difficult to reach a settlement or resolve the case amicably. 
 
2. Risk of denial: The court may not grant your request for sanctions if it believes that the defendant's conduct does not warrant such measures or if the requested sanctions are deemed excessive. 
 
3. Additional costs: Pursuing sanctions may require additional legal work, such as drafting motions and attending hearings, which can increase the overall cost of the litigation. 
 
Regarding the likelihood of success in obtaining sanctions, it is difficult to provide an exact percentage without knowing more details about the case and the specific conduct of the defendant. However, if you can demonstrate that the defendant has engaged in a pattern of withholding critical information or providing evasive responses, and that this conduct has significantly hindered your ability to build your case, you may have a strong argument for seeking sanctions. 
 
Ultimately, the decision to pursue sanctions should be made in consultation with your legal counsel, who can assess the specific facts of your case and advise you on the most appropriate course of action.

Q: Would compelling definitive answer be more preferential?