What is the burden of proof on a sanctions motion?

Defendants also contend the trial court improperly flipped the burden of proof by requiring them to produce evidence demonstrating that a useless expenditure of public funds did not actually take place. The parties have not cited any cases addressing the burden of proof on a sanctions motion. Our independent research reveals at least one court concluded that after the moving party on a sanctions motion asserts an action lacks legal support, the burden shifts to the other party to cite authority for the action. (Weisman v. Bower (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1231, 1236, fn. 6, 238 Cal.Rptr. 756.)

As a general matter, [e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, a party has the burden of proof as to each fact the existence or nonexistence of which is essential to the claim for relief or defense that he is asserting. (Evid.Code, 500, 550, subd. (b) [The burden of producing evidence as to a particular fact is initially on the party with the burden of proof as to that fact.].) Both the current and former versions of section 128.5 do not provide otherwise. A party seeking sanctions may rely on factually devoid discovery responses by the party opposing the sanctions motion to raise a reasonable inference the party opposing the sanctions motion lacks facts supporting its claims. (Cf. Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 589590, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 653 [a moving defendant may rely on factually devoid discovery responses to shift the burden of proof on summary judgment].) Once the party with the burden of proof as to a particular fact

[247 Cal.App.4th 1320]