Katherine Gallo is an expert in complex discovery issues and is actively involved in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a Discovery Referee, Mediator and Arbitrator in Northern California since 1994. Ms. Gallo is known for her extensive discovery seminars, in house discovery training, and go-to blog on pre-trial discovery. Since 2010, she has authored a on discovery titled www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com.
Ms. Gallo has served as a court appointed or party selected private Discovery Referee or Special Master in over 250 hotly litigated matters concerning complex issues in business, construction defect (including lines and construction operations losses), insurance, employment (including wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment, and wage and hour claims), elder abuse, real property (including eminent domain, easements, and commissions), Lemon Law, personal injury and family law, many with multiple party litigants, including class actions. Well known to the judiciary, her court appointments in complex matters have come from the Superior Courts throughout the State.
Ms. Gallo has mediated or acted as a pro tem settlement judge in over 500 matters with a 90% settlement rate. Ms. Gallo takes pride in accomplishing the parties’ and the courts’ objectives with regard to impartiality, timeliness and accuracy.
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…
“Under the general sanctions provisions of the Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030, the trial court had the authority to impose monetary sanctions for the City’s pattern of discovery abuse. The court was not limited to imposing sanctions for each individual violation of the rules governing depositions or other methods of discovery.” at pages 50-51.
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 ability to obtain sanctions to the specific discovery device decision. In their decision, the Supreme Court stated that
“Under the general sanctions provisions of the Civil Discovery Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030, the trial court had the authority to impose monetary sanctions for the City’s pattern of discovery abuse. The court was not limited to imposing sanctions for each individual violation of the rules governing depositions or other methods of discovery.” at pages 50-51.
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. 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.
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
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…
A peeled onion with a isolated white background with slight drop shadow.
