How often do you see this objection? Irrelevancy is one of the garbage objections that parties throw out in response to discovery. Do you wonder if opposing counsel actually understands what is relevant in discovery? Did you ever question if opposing counsel ever read the statute let alone the case law? So, what can you
Over the years, I have heard numerous motions for issue, evidence and terminating sanctions. I found that it is difficult to rule on motions for issue and evidence sanctions if the Separate Statement is not complete. If the Separate Statement does not fully explain what you are asking for and specifically describe the numerous discovery
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
Proving allegations are false is like peeling an onion. You need to have a specific discovery plan to attack the falsity of the claims.
Continue Reading Proving That the Opposing Party’s Accusations are False–Like Peeling an Onion
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?
Have you noticed that you are getting too many objections and very little documents to your document requests? Have you also noticed that despite months of meet and confers you still don’t have a determination whether or not documents exist; and if they do exist, why they aren’t being produced? Is this scenario more the norm than the exception?
Continue Reading Start Preparing Your Motion Because with These Responses You’re Going to Court
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
In the case of Victaulic Co. v. American Home Assurance Co. (2018) 20 Cal. App. 5th 948, 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.
Continue Reading Denials to Requests for Admissions are NOT Admissible
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