Before I head off to class, I wanted to drop this off. I was poking around California statutes to see what sanctions Chuck might be facing.

Rule 2.30

(b) Sanctions

In addition to any other sanctions permitted by law, the court may order a person, after written notice and an opportunity to be heard, to pay reasonable monetary sanctions to the court or an aggrieved person, or both, for failure without good cause to comply with the applicable rules. For the purposes of this rule, “person” means a party, a party’s attorney, a witness, and an insurer or any other individual or entity whose consent is necessary for the disposition of the case. If a failure to comply with an applicable rule is the responsibility of counsel and not of the party, any penalty must be imposed on counsel and must not adversely affect the party’s cause of action or defense thereto.

(Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2007; adopted as untitled subdivision effective January 1, 1985; amended and relettered effective July 1, 2001; previously amended effective January 1, 1994, and January 1, 2004.)

(d) Award of expenses

In addition to the sanctions awardable under (b), the court may order the person who has violated an applicable rule to pay to the party aggrieved by the violation that party’s reasonable expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, incurred in connection with the motion for sanctions or the order to show cause.

(Subd (d) amended effective January 1, 2007; adopted effective July 1, 2001; previously amended effective January 1, 2004.)

courts.ca.gov

Since it seems Gawker had an attorney present at the hearing, Chuck could then be compelled to reimburse Gawker for the attorney’s fees and expenses, plus reimburse the court for any personnel who also attended the hearing. Maybe some local lizards can find out what such expenses might total.