A plaintiff counsel writes in asking for advice:
“Today is July 7th. Trial is July 31. Discovery cut-off was July 1 and expert discovery closes on July 16th. Well, my client sought additional treatment on June 25thwith a neck, back and spine specialist. The results of the visit were provided to
Effective January 1, 2013 and subject to certain exceptions, the duration of a witness deposition was limited to seven hours of total testimony. (CCP §2025.290(a).) The limitation brought the California statute consistent with existing federal law, which has a similar seven-hour rule. (See FRCP Rule 30(d)(1))
CCP §2025.290(b) sets forth six circumstances where
In the case of Victalic Company v American Home Assurance Company the First District Court of Appeal made it very clear that denials to Requests for Admissions are inadmissible. Here is the court’s reasoning starting at page 23 of the published opinion:
Gonsalves v. Li (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1406 (Gonsalves) involved an automobile accident. Plaintiff called defendant as an adverse witness and asked about his qualified denials of plaintiff’s RFAs that he was responsible for the accident. And in closing argument, plaintiff emphasized that the denials were evidence defendant refused to take responsibility for plaintiff’s injuries. (Id. at p. 1413.) The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for $1,208,642.86. (Id. at p. 1411.) Our colleagues in Division Five reversed, holding it was error for the trial court to allow questions about RFAs.
There was only one change to the Discovery Codes but it was significant. The legislature added language to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.220 with added requirements when you serve a deposition notice. The deposition Notice must now contain:
Several times per month I receive questions from attorneys regarding a discovery dilemma. Mostly the questions offer a novel twist on basic discovery. However, this latest query was quirkier than most and raised some interesting issues and misconceptions, so I thought I would share it with you. It went like this:
I served written discovery on a cross-defendant in a case, we are one of the defendants. Cross-defendant (represented by, the plaintiff’s counsel) has appeared in this case by way of demurrer. Cross-Defendant has refused to answer for the following reasons, (1) my clients are not parties to the cross-complaint so therefore we cannot propound discovery; (2) the court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend and the amended cross-complaint will be filed shortly by the cross-complainant; and (3) the cross-defendant lives in Europe and I need to go through the Hague Convention. I don’t think any of these are legitimate reasons for not responding to discovery.
For years, parties have videotaped both the deponent as well as the lawyer asking the questions during a deposition. The purpose is to provide a split screen video to the jury at trial which would simultaneously show the questioner and the deponent in real time. But is it permissible? As demonstrated below, the answer is “No”, unless the parties stipulate or the court orders it upon the showing of good cause.
Continue Reading
Personal Injury attorney Miles B. Cooper, a partner at Emison Hullverson LLP, wrote a very insightful article in the March, 2014 issue of Plaintiff Magazine on the joys and pitfalls of deposing treating physicians.
************************************************
Something came up for opposing counsel at the last minute and he didn’t show. That left us – the court reporter, videographer, and me – sitting in the conference room with the treating doctor deponent, the one who had been too busy, according to his office (disinterested, I suspected) to meet me face to face. “Doctor, while you’re here,” I began . . .
I am happy to report that there were no substantive changes to the Discovery Act. The only change to any of the discovery codes is C.C.P. Section 2025.510 which involves deposition transcripts. As you can see by the 2014 Amendment those changes were more edits than changes:
Somewhere in the back of your mind you are aware that discovery and Motions for Summary Judgment deadlines are looming. Yet, you really don’t pay attention to them until they are upon us usually around day 45 when you start trying to schedule experts. That is when you realize there are not enough hours in the day and days in the week. Unless you have a case that is a simple slip and fall or a fender bender, the last 100 days before trial can be daunting. Throw in a Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication into the mix and you’re swamped. Then there is the ultimate question you ask yourself, “When am I going to find time to prepare for trial.”
The Code of Civil Procedure timeline regarding deadlines for expert disclosure, close of discovery and the last day discovery motions can be heard is demonstrated below. Seeing it scheduled in black and white is kind of scary.
Continue Reading
Last November I received the following e-mail:
Since courts are so overwhelmed and setting dates for hearing is now running 6 months or longer, how does one do motions to compel further responses to interrogatories in a meaningful way? I booked the first available date with the court, but it is not until next June and I need the responses in order to know what documents to request. Any ideas?
It is unfortunate that the California budget crisis has so imploded civil litigation in our courts. Despite the fact that discovery is the heart and soul or your case and you are entitled to compliance with your discovery requests; law and motion departments typically give discovery motions the lowest priority on their calendar. So, what do you do?
Continue Reading