Nine years ago, in the middle of a Deposition, defense counsel called plaintiff counsel a “Bitch.” Plaintiff counsel immediately filed a motion for a Discovery Referee and I was appointed. The court ordered that I sit in on all the depositions and attend the site inspection. All communication including the scheduling of discovery was to be done through me. When I look back on this case, I realize that the moment defense counsel used the word “Bitch” it became the turning point of the case.
Continue Reading When an Apology is a Discovery Response
Katherine Gallo
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.
Contact:Read more about Katherine Gallo
You’ve Blown the Dreaded Draconian 45-Day Rule-Now What Do You Do?
By Katherine Gallo on
Motions to compel further responses to interrogatories, requests for productions of documents and requests for admissions require that the motion be filed within 45 days. CCP §§ 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c) and 2032.290(c) Delaying the filing of the motion waives a party’s right to compel further responses. The case of Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal. App. 3d 681 at 685 (Pre-1986 Discovery Act) takes the position that the court lacks jurisdiction to order further responses after time has expired. The Second District Court of Appeal upheld this rationale in Sexton v. Superior Court (1987) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1403), 1410. So now what do you do?
Continue Reading You’ve Blown the Dreaded Draconian 45-Day Rule-Now What Do You Do?
Are Your Objections Garbage?
By Katherine Gallo on
Not only are most objections garbage, we tend to recycle our garbage objections from one case to the next. Sometimes, we pick up other attorneys’ garbage objections and contribute to more litter. This is done over and over again without even thinking what it is doing to the environment of the litigation.
Garbage objections fuel the ire of opposing counsel. The “meet and confer” letter that is soon to follow is usually full of hostility and threats. Any amicable relationship you had hoped for with opposing counsel is on the cusp of being destroyed. More important, you are now costing your client more money in attorneys’ fees and possibly in settlement. So before you throw out the trash, look at these common objections and why they will be overruled:…
Continue Reading Are Your Objections Garbage?
The Goddess of the Deposition
By Katherine Gallo on
The moral of the story is that court reporters are the caretakers of the deposition. Their job is to accurately record all statements made in the deposition for later review by attorneys, judges and appeals courts. It does nobody any good if the court reporter can’t get down an accurate rendition of the deposition. So, at the beginning of the deposition, advise the court reporter and all parties in the room that the court reporter is the “Goddess of the Transcript” and she is to immediately tell you all when she can no longer get an accurate rendition of the deposition. If the yelling, hostility and abuse continues, then recess the deposition and go to court and get a protective order and/or request a referee be appointed to sit on the continued deposition. See C.C.P. §§2025.420 and 639(a)(5). Do it sooner than later because your goal is an accurate transcript.
Continue Reading The Goddess of the Deposition
Interrogatories–You have An Obligation to Respond in Good Faith
By Katherine Gallo on
Imagine this: At the beginning of the case you serve interrogatories asking basic information about your case. Thirty-five (35) days later you receive responses that state for every interrogatory:
“Vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, not likely to lead to admissible evidence and the information is equally accessible to the defendant. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds of attorney client privilege and the work product doctrine. See Nacht & Lewis Architect, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 47 CA4th 214.
Does this sound all too familiar? The frustration level is high with attorneys as it will take at a minimum 121 days to get basic information if you have to file a motion to compel further responses. Meanwhile the court is scheduling a trial date and your discovery train hasn’t even left the station.
Continue Reading Interrogatories–You have An Obligation to Respond in Good Faith
Are Official Form Interrogatories Objection Proof?
By Katherine Gallo on
The California Supreme Court will uphold Coito v. Superior Court (2010)182 Cal. App. 4th 758(pdf). First of all, the basic purpose of the discovery is to take the “game element” out of trial preparation. See Weil and Brown Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2009) ¶8:1 citing Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56C2d 355, 376; Emerson Elec. Co. v. Superior Court(1997) 16 C4th 1101, 1107. Second, knowing whether or not there are witness statements is not protected under a document production as you would have to disclose the information in a privilege log, so why should it be different for interrogatories. Third, California has a work product statute–C.C.P. §2018.010 et seq.– which codifies California law which makes witnesses statements qualified work product. And, finally, C.C.P §2018.060 allows allows any party to request an in camera review of the documents, which the defendants in Coito v. Superior Court (2010)182 Cal. App. 4th 758(pdf). did not request. Do you agree?
Continue Reading Are Official Form Interrogatories Objection Proof?