Sometimes, when you follow the rules regarding the expert witness demand and the initial expert witness disclosure and declaration and are now in receipt of opposing party’s expert disclosure, you find that the opposing party plans to call experts at trial in a subject area which you assumed wouldn’t require expert testimony, or that you
If a party has timely served a Demand for Simultaneous Exchange of Expert Trial Witness Information pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210, then “all parties who have appeared in the action shall exchange information concerning expert witnesses in writing on or before the date of exchange specified in the demand.”C.C.P. §2034.260(a). Unless there is a court order specifying otherwise, that date for the simultaneous exchange is 50 days before the initial trial date, or 20 days after service of the demand, whichever is closer to the trial date. C.C.P. §2034.230(b).
Continue Reading 50 Days Before Trial—It’s Expert Disclosure Time
From the Courts’ and Legislature’s perspective, the purpose of discovery is to exchange information between the parties so each side can evaluate their strengths and weaknesses of their case, so that they are able to resolve the case or, if settlement is not possible, to safeguard against surprise at trial to avoid unnecessary delays and appeals. From the parties’ perspective, the purpose is to obtain as much as you need from your opponent about their case. Most critical to this process is taking the depositions of opposing parties’ experts. However, in order to have the right to take those depositions, you must strictly follow the rules for expert witnesses outlined in Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.010 et seq., starting with the demand for simultaneous exchange of expert trial witness information pursuant to CCP § 2034.210 titled “Demand for simultaneous exchange of expert trial witness information; List; Expert witness declaration; Discoverable reports and writings”, which reads:
Continue Reading EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE: It’s All About Following the Statutes
The biggest burden in bringing motions to compel further responses is the preparation of the separate statement of items in dispute pursuant to CRC, Rule 3.1345. In my blogs and at seminars, I have advised parties to prepare their meet and confer letters in the format of a separate statement. See my blog “EXHIBIT A—The Meet and Confer Letter.” As a Discovery Referee I have required parties to exchange Discovery in Word format. I find it is helpful for two reasons: (1) the parties can meet and confer using the “Track Changes” function in Word and hopefully agree on the modifications to the propounded written discovery, and (2) parties can easily prepare the separate statement of items in dispute if a motion needs to be filed. This takes out the grunt work of having to retype the interrogatories, requests for admissions and requests for documents, as well as their responses when preparing or responding to the separate statement when only a hard copy was served.
Assume you receive the following response to your Requests for Production of Documents:
Responding party hereby incorporates its general objections as if fully stated herein. Responding party objects to this request to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. Responding party objects as it invades their and third parties’ right of privacy. Responding party objects that the request fails to specifically describe each individual item sought or reasonably particularize each category of item sought. Responding party objects that it is unduly burdensome and overbroad. Responding party objects to this request as it does not seek relevant documents or documents reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding party objects that plaintiff has equal access to these documents. Responding party objects that the request seeks documents already in plaintiff’s possession custody or control. Notwithstanding said objections, no documents.
In reviewing the response, it is likely you are focusing in on the fact that there are garbage objections to your request and that you weren’t provided a privilege log. However, there is another issue that you should take very seriously—the document response is not in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230.
Continue Reading Nail Down Whether the Documents You are Seeking ever Existed and Where They are Now
The greatest discovery abuses come from responses to Requests for Production of Documents. Many responses contain a myriad of garbage objections, fail to contain a privilege log, along with producing documents that are not organized by category. Due to the responding party’s failure to comply with Codes of Civil Procedure § 2031.220, §2031.230, §2031.2400 and §2031.280, a motion to compel further responses and production of documents is the most common motion on the court’s docket. It is also the most time-consuming motion to not only prepare, but for the court to rule on.
On January 1, 2020, Code of Civil Procedure §2023.050 became effective which imposes mandatory sanctions for motions regarding Requests for Production of Documents. This new statute requires the court to impose mandatory sanctions on motions involving requests for production of documents. This sets up a party’s ability to bring issue, evidence and terminating sanctions as there will be an adjudication of prior discovery abuse.
Continue Reading New Discovery Sanction Regarding Requests for Production of Documents
There were three changes to the Discovery Act that became effective on January 1st, 2020 which can be found in Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.280, 2016.090 and 2023.050. This blog will discuss the change to C.C.P. §2031.280 and its significance.
California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280 titled Form in which documents to be produced; Form for producing electronically stored information; Translation of data subdivision (a) states as follows:
Old Statute:
(a) Any documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall either be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business, or be organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in the demand.
New Statute:
(a) Any documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.
Difference:
Responding party can no longer produce documents kept in the “usual course of business. “
Continue Reading Make Sure You are Aware of the New Document Response Requirements
As stated in the blog “It’s Not a Discovery Device, But…”, a Demand for Bill of Particulars is NOT a discovery device, but an extension of the complaint or a cross-complaint [complaint]. Unlike interrogatories and deposition testimony, a Bill of Particulars is conclusive as to the items and amounts claimed and no other evidence is admissible at trial. More importantly, if the court finds that any of the line items are deficient it can strike the entry and preclude plaintiff/cross-complainant [plaintiff] from proving the debt is owed.
Pre-trial discovery is the heart and soul of litigation. It enables the parties to evaluate and prepare their case for mediation, motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication and for trial. The propounding of discovery also leads to discovery disputes and then to discovery motions–all which can threaten to overwhelm the litigation of the case. However, due to the court holidays ordered by the Judicial Council during this pandemic, parties were not able to have their discovery disputes heard by the courts, thus, stalling their cases. Now with the courts reopening, the backlog of motions previously taken off calendar will need to be rescheduled. Meanwhile, new motions are being filed. This unprecedented situation begs the question from attorneys: When will my discovery motion be heard?
Life as we knew it has been put on hold due to COVID-19. Courts are closed, deadlines are extended, and court dates have been continued. As the courts establish “new norms” for their operations, access to the civil courts may be limited and further delayed. It is not clear what civil matters will receive priority. Civil law and motion matters taken off calendar due to court closures will need to be rescheduled, and newly filed motions added to crowded calendars. It could take months or years before the court dockets return to normal. Scheduling new law and motion matters and having them heard will be challenging for all litigators. However, courts and counsel have available options to address the backlog.
Continue Reading Civil Litigation and COVID-19: Justice Need Not Be Delayed