UPDATED 10/23/2020

There are three motions that you can bring–(1) Motion to Compel, (2) Motion to Compel Further Responses, and (3) Motion to Have Admissions Deemed Admitted. All of them have their place in your discovery plan but two of them–Motion to Compel Further Responses and Motions to Have Matters Deemed Admitted must be in your arsenal. Though they appear to be the same motions you would use for interrogatories, inspection demands, and depositions there are a few noteworthy twists and turns.

Continue Reading Request for Admissions-THE MOTIONS

Attorney with Gloves.jpgWhen I was a research attorney in the Law and Motion department for Alameda County Superior Court, I handled the ex parte calendar. My judge instructed me to obtain the facts and arguments from counsel, do my own research if necessary, and present the ex parte application and my recommendation to her.  Early in my career at the court, I handled an ex parte application on a case that had apparently been up and back from the Court of Appeal. When I asked for the facts of the case from counsel, he shot back at me saying “The judge knows this case because she was writted.” I told him I needed to know the facts of the case so I could provide her with my research and recommendation. He refused. When I walked back to the judge’s chambers, I overheard the counsel tell his client “She must be new because everyone knows this case.”

Continue Reading The Battle Before the Battle

UPDATED 10/22/2020

Answering Requests for Admissions is very similar to answering interrogatories–you have an obligation to respond in good faith and you have to be careful about your garbage objections.  However, the code makes it clear that the requirements in responding to Requests for Admissions are higher.

Continue Reading Answering Requests for Admissions-Beware of the Traps

UPDATED 10/23/2020

Requests for admissions may be used to (1) establish the truth of specified facts, (2) admit a legal conclusion, (3) determine a party’s opinion relating to a fact, (4) settle a matter in controversy, and  (5) admit the genuineness of documents. See C.C.P. §2033.010; Cal. Prac. Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2020), ¶¶8:1288 – 8:1301.2; CEB California Civil Discovery Practice 4th Edition §§ 9:17 – 9:20. However, how to write a request for admission in order to obtain effective evidence or to set up a cost of proof sanction is difficult.

Continue Reading How to Write Requests for Admissions


UPDATED 10/22/2020

If you are like most lawyers, you are using the typical discovery devices to gather up all your information–form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and of course the deposition schedule from Hell.  However, requests for admissions are rarely in a party’s discovery plan. I suggest you take a closer look at C.C.P. §2033.010 et seq.  Requests for admissions are wonderful, tricky little discovery devices that really help you set up your case.

Continue Reading Why Aren’t You Using Requests for Admissions

Impeaching Attorney.jpgThe third in a series of four blogs from George Ellard from The Veen Firm on how to cross-examine a witness to impair their credibility.

***************

Impeachment by character evidence is the use of a personal trait to impair credibility. There are essentially four methods to impeach using character evidence: defects in perception, defects in recollection, felony convictions and past misconduct.

Continue Reading Impeaching the Witness with Character Evidence

Cross Examine Women.jpgThe second of four blogs on how to cross-examine a witness to impeach their credibility from George Ellard  of the The Veen Firm.

***************

Perhaps the most effective and most frequently used form of impairing credibility is proof of a statement or conduct by the witness that is inconsistent with the trial testimony. (Ev. C. § 780(h) (pdf)) The inconsistency need not be a complete contradiction. The test is whether the prior statement is inconsistent in effect with the trial testimony. People v. Spencer (1969) 71 Cal.2d 933 (pdf), 941.

 

Continue Reading Using Prior Inconsistent Statements and Conduct

 

George Ellard from The Veen Firm brings the first of four blogs on how to cross-examine a witness to impair their credibility.

***************

Cross-examination goals essentially boil down to 1) developing facts which support your case, 2) harm the defense case and 3) impair credibility. You must carefully analyze the first two goals before you decide to impair the credibility of a witness.

Continue Reading Cross-Examination to Impair Witness Credibility

Objecting male attorney.jpgIn the spirit of my most recent blog, “OBJECTION!! There’s this case that says . . . “, here is a list of proper and improper objections to deposition questions that you should also keep in the back of your legal pad.  

OBJECTIONS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS

Objections to the form of questions are waived if not raised at the deposition. Weil and Brown, Cal Prac. Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2010) ¶8:721 (citing C.C.P. §2025.460 (pdf)(b)).

Instructing witness not to answer is improper unless objecting on grounds of privilege. CCP §2025.460 (pdf)Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc.(2001) 87 CA4th 1006 (pdf), 10015.

Speaking objections which counsel explains his rationale for the objection is improper as it is usually used as a tactic to give the deponent a heads up that the area of questioning is dangerous and how he should answer.  This is a form of “coaching” the witness and a protective order may need to be sought.  See CEB, California Civil Discovery Practice (4th ed. 2010) §6:100.

Continue Reading DEPOSITONS–What are the Real Objections?