Consider the following question I received from a defense attorney.
“Plaintiff timely served updated verified responses to Form Interrogatories, Set #1, #6.4, 8.4, 8.6, 16.1- 16.8 and 17.1 (RFA #5) pursuant to a Supplemental Interrogatory request. Instead of providing the information requested in the interrogatories, Plaintiff responded to each of the interrogatories with the following response:
There are two significant changes to the Discovery Act this year: C.C.P. §2016.090 and C.C.P. §2023.050. My California Civil Discovery: Chart for the Everyday Litigator has been updated to reflect these changes.
Code of Civil Procedure §2016.090—Initial Disclosures
Effective January 1, 2024, Code of Civil Procedure §2016.090 allows a party to serve a demand
According to the Second District Court of Appeal in the family law case of In Re Marriage of Rangell decided on September 28, 2023 the answer is YES! The Court of Appeal found that the husband had violated numerous family court orders for over two years and that the court’s imposition of sanctions pursuant to Family
Proving allegations are false is like peeling an onion. You need to have a specific discovery plan to attack the falsity of the claims.
Continue Reading Proving That the Opposing Parties Accusations are False–Is Like Peeling an Onion
Many motions for terminating sanctions are denied due to the papers being deficient due to a lack of a showing of abuse and prejudice.
Continue Reading When Money is Not Enough–The Request for “Drastic Sanctions”
The Onglyza Product Cases, A165387 decided on April 19, 2023 by the First District Court of Appeal is a case to be aware of.
The case involved 13 California state cases coordinated under a Judicial Council Coordination proceeding (JCCP) regarding the drug of Onglyza and Kombiglyze which contained the active ingredient saxagliptin a medicine for type 2 diabetes. Plaintiffs’ alleged that they were injured as the active ingredient can cause heart failure. The trial court ordered the parties to conduct discovery in phases. The first phase covered percipient and expert discovery on the issue of general causation, noting that the litigation would then proceed as to other issues only if plaintiffs were able to show that the defendant’s drugs caused the injuries alleged. Following expert discovery, the defendants moved to exclude Plaintiffs’ causation expert, a Dr. Goyal. Defendants’ claimed in a Daubert/Sargon hearing that Dr. Goyal was either unqualified to offer his proposed opinions, or that the basis of the opinions were incomplete and didn’t support causation. Continue Reading Beware if Your Expert is Disqualified!!
After reviewing the 2023 discovery statutes, there have been changes to the following statutes:
The most significant change in the 2023 discovery statutes is the repealing of C.C.P. 2016.080 Informal Discovery Conference. See discovery blog titled “If Meet and Confer fails, Ask for Help.” Also, make sure to check your local rules and determine if your court will still use informal discovery conferences.
C.C.P. §2025.310 Deposition via remote means; Who must appear in person; Procedure
Added the second sentence to paragraph (b) which states:
If a party or attorney of record elects to be physically present at the location of the deponent, all physically present participants in the deposition shall comply with local health and safety ordinances, rules, and orders.Continue Reading It’s a New Year and there are New Discovery Laws
A party cannot rely solely on C.C.P. 2023.010 in bringing a motion for discovery sanctions.
Continue Reading Where’s the Authority to Award Sanctions?
A common area ob abuse occurs when attorneys instruct a witness not to answer a deposition question.
Continue Reading What to do When the Deponent Refuses to Answer
One of the most common questions I am asked is: when does the clock start regarding bringing motions to compel written discovery? The statutes all contain the same language, but it’s not that easy to decipher. Below is a list of scenarios with the applicable statutes and case law regarding the different responses you may receive.
FAILURE TO RESPOND There is no time limit on bringing the motion to compel the response to the Interrogatories, or the request for production of documents, or have the admissions be deemed admitted. See CCP §§2030.290(b), 2031.300(b) and 2033.280.
RESPONSES WITHOUT VERIFICATION There is no time limit on bringing the motion, as an unverified response is tantamount to no response. See Cal. Prac Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2022) 8:1102 citing Appleton v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 206 CA3d 632, 636.
RESPONSES WITH ONLY OBJECTIONS Need to bring the motion within 45-days of service of the response. See CCP §§2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), and 2033.290(c).
Responses that only contain objections need not be verified by the party but the response must be signed by the attorney. See CCP §§ 2030.250(a),(c), 2031.250(a),(c), 2033.250(a), (c) and Cal. Prac Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2022) 8:1113 citing Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 202 CA3d 339, 344.
RESPONSES WITH ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS Need to bring the motion within 45-days of service of the response. See CCP CCP §§2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), and 2033.290(c).
The Fourth District Court of Appeal in the case of Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 855 answered the question whether the 45-day period to file a motion to compel further responses begins to run upon service of a combination of unverified responses and objections if the motion challenges only the objections. The Court held that “the most reasonable construction of the applicable statutes seems to us to require verification of such a hybrid of responses and objections before the time period begins to run.”
The response must be signed under oath by the responding party and the attorney. See CCP §§ 2030.250(a),(c), 2031.250(a),(c), 2033.250(a), (c) and Cal. Prac Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2022) 8:1113 citing Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 202 CA3d 339, 344.
AMENDED RESPONSES The clock on a motion to compel further responses begins to run once the “supplemental verified responses” are served. See CCP §§2030.290(b), 2031.300(b) and 2033.280. See Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 855.
REMEMBER:
Stipulations to extend the time to bring a motion to compel further responses must be in writing with a date certain. See Cal. Prac Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2022) 8:1148 and CCP CCP §§2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), and 2033.290(c).
Delaying the motion beyond the 45-day limit waives your right to bring a motion to compel as the court loses jurisdiction. See Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal. App. 3d 681 at 683-684 and Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 CA4th 1403, 1409-1410
The court may toll the deadline for filing a discovery motion if an Informal Discovery Conference is requested pursuant to CCP §2016.280. See blog “If Meet and Confer Fails, Ask for Help.”Continue Reading When Do I Have to Bring a Motion to Compel Written Discovery?