Having reviewed thousands of Motions to Compel Further Responses over the years, I rely heavily on the separate statement filed with these motions. Unfortunately, I find that many of the separate statements are deficient and not in compliance with Rule 3.1345 of the California Rules of Court. This inevitably hurts the moving party as
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. Continue Reading Can I Reference Documents When Answering Interrogatories?
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”
One of the most common questions I am asked is: when does the clock start regarding bringing motions to compel written discovery? The statutes all contain the same language, but it’s not that easy to decipher. Below is a list of scenarios with the applicable statutes and case law regarding the different responses you may receive.
FAILURE TO RESPOND There is no time limit on bringing the motion to compel the response to the Interrogatories, or the request for production of documents, or have the admissions be deemed admitted. See CCP §§2030.290(b), 2031.300(b) and 2033.280.
RESPONSES WITHOUT VERIFICATION There is no time limit on bringing the motion, as an unverified response is tantamount to no response. See Cal. Prac Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2022) 8:1102 citing Appleton v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 206 CA3d 632, 636.
RESPONSES WITH ONLY OBJECTIONS Need to bring the motion within 45-days of service of the response. See CCP §§2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), and 2033.290(c).
Responses that only contain objections need not be verified by the party but the response must be signed by the attorney. See CCP §§ 2030.250(a),(c), 2031.250(a),(c), 2033.250(a), (c) and Cal. Prac Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2022) 8:1113 citing Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 202 CA3d 339, 344.
RESPONSES WITH ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS Need to bring the motion within 45-days of service of the response. See CCP CCP §§2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), and 2033.290(c).
The Fourth District Court of Appeal in the case of Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 855 answered the question whether the 45-day period to file a motion to compel further responses begins to run upon service of a combination of unverified responses and objections if the motion challenges only the objections. The Court held that “the most reasonable construction of the applicable statutes seems to us to require verification of such a hybrid of responses and objections before the time period begins to run.”
The response must be signed under oath by the responding party and the attorney. See CCP §§ 2030.250(a),(c), 2031.250(a),(c), 2033.250(a), (c) and Cal. Prac Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2022) 8:1113 citing Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1988) 202 CA3d 339, 344.
AMENDED RESPONSES The clock on a motion to compel further responses begins to run once the “supplemental verified responses” are served. See CCP §§2030.290(b), 2031.300(b) and 2033.280. See Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 855.
REMEMBER:
Stipulations to extend the time to bring a motion to compel further responses must be in writing with a date certain. See Cal. Prac Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2022) 8:1148 and CCP CCP §§2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), and 2033.290(c).
Delaying the motion beyond the 45-day limit waives your right to bring a motion to compel as the court loses jurisdiction. See Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal. App. 3d 681 at 683-684 and Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 CA4th 1403, 1409-1410
The court may toll the deadline for filing a discovery motion if an Informal Discovery Conference is requested pursuant to CCP §2016.280. See blog “If Meet and Confer Fails, Ask for Help.”Continue Reading When Do I Have to Bring a Motion to Compel Written Discovery?
That is what the Eighth Division of the Second District Court of Appeal said in their opinion in Beth Field v. U.S. Bank National Association B309111 filed on June 9, 2022. The Court of Appeal went further and said “You likewise harm your own prospects if ever you hope for a fee award. (See Karton v. Ari Design & Construction Inc. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 734, 747 [attorney unprofessionalism justifies reducing fee awards].)”
The biggest burden in bringing motions to compel further responses is the preparation of the separate statement of items in dispute pursuant to CRC, Rule 3.1345. In my blogs and at seminars, I have advised parties to prepare their meet and confer letters in the format of a separate statement. See my blog “EXHIBIT A—The Meet and Confer Letter.” As a Discovery Referee I have required parties to exchange Discovery in Word format. I find electronic forms for Discovery, especially in Word, are helpful for two reasons: (1) the parties can meet and confer using the “Track Changes” function in Word and hopefully agree on the modifications to the propounded written Discovery, and (2) parties can easily prepare the separate statement of items in dispute if a motion needs to be filed. This electronic Discovery process takes out the grunt work of having to retype the interrogatories, requests for admissions and requests for documents, as well as their responses when preparing or responding to the separate statement when only a hard copy was served.Continue Reading In Order to Facilitate the Discovery Process–Serve Your Discovery in Electronic Form
It’s not required that a party amend interrogatory responses to reflect information the party got after responding, but there are situations in which a party may want to do just that.
Here’s why it may be a good idea to amend interrogatory responses:Continue Reading Should You Amend Your Interrogatory Responses?
The purpose of discovery is to take the “game” element out of trial preparation by enabling the parties to obtain evidence necessary to evaluate and resolve their dispute before a trial is necessary. Weil and Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2018) ¶8:1 citing Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 55 C.2d. 355, 376.
Serving “[a]ppropriate written interrogatories are one of the means to accomplish the general goals of the discovery process designed to facilitate a fair trial.” (Juarez v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc. (2000) 81 CA4th 377, 389)
“Interrogatories expedite the resolution of lawsuits … [by detecting] sham claims and defenses … [and] may be employed to support a motion for summary judgment or a motion to specify those issues which are without substantial controversy.” Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 CA3d 771, 779
Continue Reading Why You Need to Bring that Motion To Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories
When I was a research attorney for Alameda County Superior Court, my judge drilled into me to always check the proof of service to make sure that it was signed and service on all parties had properly been made. As a Discovery Referee, I still review the proof of service first and I am always amused when the proof of service is signed saying that I was already served. Recently I was reading Aaron Morris’ article “Don’t be that Attorney—Ten Ways to Make Yourself Look Foolish”, a humorous article that many of us lawyers always wanted to write about the outlandish positions attorneys take. I specifically enjoyed his third pet peeve and had to pass it along.
So here it isContinue Reading To Sign or Not to Sign Your Proof of Service
Recently I received a telephone call from an attorney wanting to discuss whether opposing party’s objections to her special interrogatories had any merit. Listening to the list of objections, it was clear that the opposing party had failed to assert the objections in good faith as the objections included a General Objection preamble and every response included the same boilerplate garbage objections. However, one of the objections I hadn’t seen before: “No preface or instruction shall be included with a set of interrogatories. C.C.P. §2030.060(d).” The propounding party had placed the definitions of specific terms in a preamble. Did I think this was ok or not?
Continue Reading Avoiding the Technical Mistakes When Drafting Written Discovery