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,
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
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
Recently at an MCLE seminar, a sitting judge forewarned the audience that because of all the new judges from a variety of backgrounds, often they don’t have the necessary background on law and procedures for their department. His advice:
come to your hearings with copies of all the important cases and statutes, no matter how basic the concept is.
This sitting judge was subtly saying: Plan on educating the court!!
The meet and confer process has failed. Now you have to decide whether (1) you need to bring a Motion to Compel Further Documents because the documents are an integral part of the defense and/or prosecution of your case, or (2) wait for trial and make a motion in limine to exclude the documents categorically at trial. Two of the factors you are going to have to consider are how much time it’s going to take to prepare the motion as well as the cost to your client.
Most attorneys underestimate the time and cost in filing a Motion to Compel Further Responses.
Effective January 1, 2019, Code of Civil Procedure Section 2016.080 authorizes the court to conduct an informal discovery conference upon request of a party or on the court’s own motion. The statute reads:
(a) If an informal resolution is not reached by the parties, as described in Section 2016.040, the court may conduct an informal discovery conference upon request by a party or on the court’s own motion for the purpose of discussing discovery matters in dispute between the parties.
The purpose of the “meet and confer” requirements set forth in C.C.P. §§ 2025.450(b)(2), 2025.480, 2030.300(b), 2031.310(b), 2032.250 and 2033.290 was for the lawyers to revisit their position, and in good faith, discuss a resolution in order to avoid unnecessary discovery motions.
Unfortunately, times have changed since the Discovery Act of 1986 went into effect. No longer can a law firm afford to have an associate sit at the knees of a respected senior partner and watch, listen, and learn without billing. No longer do lawyers have time for the “two-martini” lunch in order to get input from their colleagues about cases with which they are having trouble. No longer is the legal community so small that you know you are going to see opposing counsel again and fear their retaliation.
In the previous blog, Start Preparing Your Motion Because with These Responses You’re Going to Court, I used the following example as a type of response I see as a Discovery Referee:
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. Responding party objects to this request as it seeks documents that are not within defendants’ possession, custody, or control.
Boilerplate objections are becoming more and more common in response to each of the document requests. The above is an example of inappropriate boilerplate objections. In fact, boilerplate general objections are sanctionable in California per Korea Data Systems Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1513 and may result in waivers of privilege per Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court 408 F.3d 1142, 2005 WL 1175 922 (9th Cir.2005) [trial court affirmed in holding boilerplate objection without identification of documents is not the proper assertion of a privilege.]
Continue Reading WHY THESE OBJECTIONS ARE GARBAGE