You are now sitting down to organize your Discovery Plan and determining what discovery you need to evaluate your case, prepare for mediation, file a motion for motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication and/or get it ready for trial. But where do you start? My suggestion is to litigate like an Egyptian and build a pyramid (pdf).
As every lawyer is aware, a party may propound more than 35 specially prepared interrogatories or requests for admissions simply by attaching a Declaration of Necessity (pdf) pursuant to C.C.P. §2030.040 (pdf) and C.C.P. §2033.040 (pdf) stating the reasons why they need more. See C.C.P. §2030.050 (pdf) and C.C.P. §2033.050 (pdf). However, when you receive more than 35 specially prepared interrogatories or requests for admissions, you should ask yourself the question "IS IT REALLY NECESSARY?"
I received a copy of Petitioner Debra Coito’s Answering Brief on the Merits in the case of Coito v. Superior Court of the County of Stanislaus which is currently pending in the California Supreme Court. As you many of you are aware, Coito v. Superior Court (2010)182 Cal. App. 4th 758 (pdf)refused to follow the 14-year old case Nacht & Lewis Architect, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 CA4th 214 (pdf) stating that witness statements are not attorney work product. Below is Petitioner’s argument that the Court of Appeal correctly held that signed or recorded verbatim statements of independent witnesses are potential evidence.
Over the years friends and colleagues have called me up asking for a quick answer on a discovery question that they have. The phone call usually went like this “I want to get plaintiff’s phone records, how do I do that?” or “I forgot to disclose experts, am I too late?” or “They want to send my client to a psychiatrist. Can I object?” I know the answers to these questions which are “Yes,” “No” and “Yes.” However, to get the statutory authority, I rely on the charts I have prepared and published over the last 18 years. The California Civil Discovery--Charts for the Everyday Litigator " (pdf) was recently updated and now available to you for download.
Hope it helps!!
Attorneys easily spew out the objection “the information you are seeking is not relevant to the subject matter of the litigation” as easily as they say “Good morning.” If you are the propounding party your reaction is probably to be to yell out “It is too relevant!” because it doesn’t even appear that the responding party actually thought it through before spewing out the objection. But what exactly is relevancy? It seems to be a nebulous term that invokes images of catching clouds with your hands or like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s definition of pornography “I know it when I see it”?
Motions to compel further responses to interrogatories, requests for productions of documents and requests for admissions require that the motion be filed within 45 days. CCP §§ 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c) and 2032.290(c) Delaying the filing of the motion waives a party’s right to compel further responses. The case of Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal. App. 3d 681 (pdf) at 685 (Pre-1986 Discovery Act) takes the position that the court lacks jurisdiction to order further responses after time has expired. The Second District Court of Appeal upheld this rationale in Sexton v. Superior Court (1987) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1403 (pdf), 1410.
Not only are most objections garbage, we tend to recycle our garbage objections from one case to the next. Sometimes, we pick up other attorneys’ garbage objections and contribute to more litter. This is done over and over again without even thinking what it is doing to the environment of the litigation.
Garbage objections fuel the ire of opposing counsel. The “meet and confer” letter that is soon to follow is usually full of hostility and threats. Any amicable relationship you had hoped for with opposing counsel is on the cusp of being destroyed. More important, you are now costing your client more money in attorneys’ fees and possibly in settlement. So before you throw out the trash, look at these common objections and why they will be overruled:
Imagine this: At the beginning of the case you serve interrogatories asking basic information about your case. Thirty-five (35) days later you receive responses that state for every interrogatory:
"Vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, not likely to lead to admissible evidence and the information is equally accessible to the defendant. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds of attorney client privilege and the work product doctrine. See Nacht & Lewis Architect, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 CA4th 214 (pdf).
Does this sound all too familiar? The frustration level is high with attorneys as it will take at a minimum 121 days to get basic information if you have to file a motion to compel further responses. Meanwhile the court is scheduling a trial date and your discovery train hasn't even left the station.
The purpose of discovery is to take the “game” element out of trial preparation by enabling the parties to obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute before a trial is necessary. Weil and Brown, Cal Prac. Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2009) ¶ 8:1, citing Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961). Unfortunately, now it appears the call of the wild is “Let the games begin” as the dreaded process unfolds.
Official Form Interrogatories--General (Disc-001) prepared by the Judicial Council were intended to be used to cover basic matters as well as being a foundational discovery device in personal injury and contract cases. They also contained sub-parts which were not allowed when serving special interrogatories and they were not subject to the "Rule of 35". See California Code of Civil Procedure §§2030.030(a)(2) and 2030.060. Their use was usually the first volley in the discovery battle.
For years the Courts had found that the Form Interrogatories were objection proof as to form with minor exceptions. These minor exceptions usually involved case specific issues such as checking the box with the definition of "INCIDENT" versus creating your own definition for "INCIDENT" and cases which involve complex business transactions.
Katherine Gallo is a renowned expert in complex discovery issues, having developed a reputation with her extensive discovery seminars, in-house discovery...
More