Alexandra A. Hamilton, a trial attorney at The Veen Firm, who handles complex cases involving catastrophic injuries or death, including products liability, workplace injuries, dangerous conditions of property, and vehicle negligence has written a great article for Plaintiff Magazine regarding how to combat the games attorneys play regarding the supplemental expert disclosure. Enjoy.

Continue Reading When Opposing Counsel Tries to use Improper Supplemental Disclosures to its Benefit, Here’s How to Fight Them

Another great article from Julie Lewis, President, CEO and Founder of Digital Mountain regarding obtaining information from a party’s iPad’s, smart phones and other mobile devices.

Social Media Metadata on Mobile Devices:  Gathering Valuable Crumbs

If you’re a fan of television crime dramas, chances are you’re intrigued by how the smallest bits of evidence are often the very ones that end up closing the case on the identity of the criminal. Be it carpet fiber, a human hair, or the DNA from a single drop of blood, these infinitesimally tiny pieces of evidence can reveal vast amounts of information when handled by the right investigators. The same can be true of the small bits of information hiding underneath the content of social media postings made from mobile devices. In the hands of the right forensic examiner, the metadata behind the content can tell a lot about the briefest post. In this article, we’ll look at the connection between social media apps for mobile devices and metadata collection. Continue Reading Gathering Valuable Crumbs from a Party’s Mobile Devices

Julie Lewis, President, CEO and Founder of Digital Mountain, has over 20 years of experience working in the high technology industry and is a frequent speaker on electronic discovery, computer forensics and cybersecurity. After working on over 1,000 computer forensics and e-discovery cases for over a decade, Julie has provided us with  some simple tips for successful eDiscovery planning:

Continue Reading Ten Tips for Successful eDiscovery Planning

About a year ago I received an inquiry from a lawyer stating:

I’m researching whether the defendant can file a motion for a protective order after my motion to compel was already granted—I’m’ trying to find a case that precludes the protective order motion as a matter of law—res judicata perhaps?

This is a procedural issue and one that you need to be familiar with all the ins and outs of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as current case law because my answer is  “It depends

Continue Reading Can a Motion for Protective Order be Filed after the Court has Issued its Order?

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 me on June 26th and I immediately mailed the results to opposing counsel that day. Now opposing counsel is stating the discovery is after the cutoff and inadmissible and the doctor  can’t testify because expert disclosure has passed.   I’m really worried about whether I will be able to use the evidence and if so, how I will be able to use the evidence?”

Opposing counsel is blowing smoke at this young lawyer.

Continue Reading Opposing Counsel is Blowing Smoke

 

In this blog I have asked that lawyers write in if there was a topic they would like me to address.  I have received many requests over the years and the next couple of blogs will be responding to some of these requests.  Here is the first one.

“I noticed a few things regarding privilege logs. 1) litigators are not sending them. 2) my opposing counsel tends to argue that there is no obligation to prepare a privilege log unless it is demanded by the requesting party and I don’t think that’s right – I think it’s an affirmative duty arising when someone withholds documents under an objection – is that right?”

Continue Reading Aren’t I Entitled to a Privilege Log?

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))

Continue Reading You Don’t Need Exceptional Circumstances to Get More Time to Take a Deposition

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