Resolving Discovery Disputes - Interrogatories--You have An Obligation to Respond in Good Faith - Comments http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/ California Discovery Referee & Mediator en Copyright 2011 Sat, 23 Apr 2011 09:26:07 -0800 Sat, 23 Apr 2011 09:26:07 -0800 http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/?v=4.32-en http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Bill Lathan I have an active case, as a plaintiff, invloving Intellectual Property and have found your comments on responses to discovery completely true. The garbage I have received to my request for admissions is insulting.

The intent to win at any cost, by bullying, intimation, piles of meaninless paper is not something impressive.

Imagine these same attorneys responding in like mannor in a University Setting. Professor all the questions propounded to me are vague and incomprehensable therefore I am justified in not answering them.

Thank you for you web site

Bill Lathan

]]> http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/sanctions/interrogatories--you-have-an-obligation-to-respond-in-good-faith/#23336 http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/sanctions/interrogatories--you-have-an-obligation-to-respond-in-good-faith/#23336 AbuseCompel Further ResponsesInterrogatoriesSanctions Sat, 17 Jul 2010 09:10:52 -0800 Katherine Gallo leslie j. hedges I have never seen a discovery request where the names of both plaintiffs are identified in the discovery requests as "responding party." Is there any California case law regarding how many people may be named as "responding party" in a single discovery request?

]]> http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/sanctions/interrogatories--you-have-an-obligation-to-respond-in-good-faith/#23467 http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/sanctions/interrogatories--you-have-an-obligation-to-respond-in-good-faith/#23467 AbuseCompel Further ResponsesInterrogatoriesSanctions Sat, 17 Jul 2010 09:10:52 -0800 Katherine Gallo MikeR- In my experience, the majority of garbage responses are a direct result of garbage requests. When attorneys take the time to write specific requests, to really think about the evidence that they hope to find and when they remember their obligations as officers of the court to fair and efficient justice (not merely a scorched-earth advocate for one client), the responses are usually equally professional and cooperative.

A vague question may indicate that the requestor doesn't know what he/she doesn't know (a legitimate though frustrating request) but more often, it seems to be either an indicator of a lazy requestor who hasn't bothered to think about which relevant facts are in dispute or worse, an a deliberate attempt to drive up the costs of preservation by the opposing side.

]]> http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/sanctions/interrogatories--you-have-an-obligation-to-respond-in-good-faith/#23617 http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/sanctions/interrogatories--you-have-an-obligation-to-respond-in-good-faith/#23617 AbuseCompel Further ResponsesInterrogatoriesSanctions Sat, 17 Jul 2010 09:10:52 -0800 Katherine Gallo Katherine Gallo I have been asked that question numerous times and to date I have found no cases that say you can't serve more than one person with the discovery request. It is my belief that it is ok if they are represented by the same attorney since the attorney is the one that is responsible for gathering information to answer interrogatories and requests for admissions. However, you do need separate verifications from each party served.

]]> http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/sanctions/interrogatories--you-have-an-obligation-to-respond-in-good-faith/#24375 http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/sanctions/interrogatories--you-have-an-obligation-to-respond-in-good-faith/#24375 AbuseCompel Further ResponsesInterrogatoriesSanctions Sat, 17 Jul 2010 09:10:52 -0800 Katherine Gallo Katherine Gallo Found a case on the issue. Tobin v. Oris (1992) 3 CA4th 814, 829. (disapproved on other grounds.) This case involved one response and two verifications. The court said
"The final objection to these responses raised by Tobin, that there was an improper joint response is utterly without merit. While Tobin submitted two separate sets of requests, one for Richard Oris and one for Milly Oris, they were apparently identical (see fn. 4, ante). That the Orises chose to respond with a single document containing identical responses, but which was verified under penalty of perjury by both of them, does not invalidate their responses; nor would it violate the statutory mandate of a "separate" response. Tobin received all that he was entitled to receive. Each of the Orises responded, each verified their responses and each could be held separately accountable therefore. To require them to have done so on separate pieces of paper would have added nothing but another triumph of form over substance."

]]> http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/sanctions/interrogatories--you-have-an-obligation-to-respond-in-good-faith/#26159 http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/sanctions/interrogatories--you-have-an-obligation-to-respond-in-good-faith/#26159 AbuseCompel Further ResponsesInterrogatoriesSanctions Sat, 17 Jul 2010 09:10:52 -0800 Katherine Gallo