California law expressly provides for discovery of information about the evidence and contents of any insurance agreement under which a carrier may be liable to satisfy all or part of a potential judgement or to indemnify or reimburse payments made to satisfy the judgment. C.C.P. §2017.210. The statute also provides for discovery of whether coverage
In the case of City of L.A. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2024) 17 C5th 46 the California Supreme Court unanimously held that the Discovery Act gives courts independent authority to impose sanctions for discovery abuses and patterns of discovery abuse provisions. This was a complete reversal of the Court of Appeal’s decision which had limited the
We all have been doing Zoom depositions for the last four years. As we have limped along, we have developed implied rules and protocols for having these depositions, but there are no written rules or guidance on how these depositions should be conducted.
Justice James Lambden (Ret.) who often is appointed as a Discovery Referee, has the answer. When he is the Discovery Referee, he serves on all parties his “REMOTE (HYBRID) DEPOSITION PROTOCOL” prior to depositions being conducted. When Justice Lambden attends the deposition, he confirms on the record that all parties have read and understands the protocol. He has found that his protocol aids him and the parties in conducting a clean Zoom deposition.
Below is Justice Lambden’s protocol. I recommend that you implement the protocol for Zoom depositions even if you don’t have a Discovery Referee and attach it as an exhibit to the deposition. Continue Reading ZOOM DEPOSITIONS—What is the Protocol
I recently received an inquiry regarding Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.050, which now states that the court SHALL impose sanctions of $1000 payable to the requesting party regarding requests for production of documents in deposition notices or document demands. These were the facts:
Plaintiff brought a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents. Defendant opposed the motion and won. The Judge then sanctioned the Defendant $1000.00 stating that he had no choice but to sanction the defendant pursuant to CCP 2023.050 as Plaintiff asked for sanctions and Defendant didn’t. The Judge also told defense counsel that if Defendant had asked for sanctions, he would have awarded Defendant the $1000.00. Defense counsel was bewildered with the imposition of sanctions and asked me if the Judge was correct.
No, the Judge was not correct. Code of Civil Procedure §2023.050 states:Continue Reading Should I have been Sanctioned?
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:
Pursuant to CCP §2030.230, Plaintiff identifies the documents Bates Stamped 00001 – 00290 she produced on March 1, 2024
The email went on to ask if Plaintiff’s response was proper. The answer is no.
Reason #1: Plaintiff failed to meet her obligations under C.C.P. §2030.220 in responding to Defendants’ Supplemental Interrogatories. The code requires that a party must make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information in responding to interrogatories. C.C.P. §2030.220; Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 64 CA4th 1496. “A party cannot plead ignorance to information which can be obtained from sources under his control.” Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 CA3d 771, 779. This includes a party’s lawyer (Smith v. Superior Court (1961) 189 CA2d 6, 12); agents or employees (Gordon v. Sup. Ct. (1984) 161 CA 3d 151, 167-168); family members (Jones v. Superior Court (1981) 119 CA 3d 534, 552); and experts who have been retained by a party. Sigerseth v. Superior Court (1972) 23 CA 3d 427, 433. Cal. Prac. Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2024) ¶ 8:1051-1060. This means that an attorney can’t just attach 290 documents with no descriptions. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 CA4th 390. The statute and the case law make it very clear that a party and the attorney must be proactive in obtaining the information to enable them to fully respond to the interrogatories. Continue Reading Can I Reference Documents When Answering Interrogatories?
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. Continue Reading Changes in Attitude—Nothing Remains Quite the Same
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
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 Party’s Accusations are False–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!!