The Onglyza Product Cases, A165387 decided on April 19, 2023 by the First District Court of Appeal is a case to be aware of.  

The case involved 13 California state cases coordinated under a Judicial Council Coordination proceeding (JCCP) regarding the drug of Onglyza and Kombiglyze which contained the active ingredient saxagliptin, a medicine for type 2 diabetes. Plaintiffs alleged that they were injured as the active ingredient can cause heart failure.  The trial court ordered the parties to conduct discovery in phases.  The first phase covered percipient and expert discovery on the issue of general causation, noting that the litigation would then proceed as to other issues only if plaintiffs were able to show that the defendant’s drugs caused the injuries alleged.  Following expert discovery, the defendants moved to exclude Plaintiffs’ causation expert, a Dr. Goyal.  Defendants’ claimed in a Daubert/Sargon hearing that Dr. Goyal was either unqualified to offer his proposed opinions, or that the basis of the opinions were incomplete and didn’t support causation.  

Continue Reading Beware if Your Expert is Disqualified!!

After reviewing the 2023 discovery statutes, there have been changes to the following statutes:

The most significant change in the 2023 discovery statutes is the repealing of C.C.P. 2016.080 Informal Discovery Conference. See discovery blog titled “If Meet and Confer fails, Ask for Help.”  Also, make sure to check your local rules and determine if your court will still use informal discovery conferences.

C.C.P. §2025.310        Deposition via remote means; Who must appear in person; Procedure

Added the second sentence to paragraph (b) which states: 

If a party or attorney of record elects to be physically present at the location of the deponent, all physically present participants in the deposition shall comply with local health and safety ordinances, rules, and orders.

Continue Reading It’s a New Year and there are New Discovery Laws

WARNING: The California Supreme Court overruled this Court of Appeal decision in City of L.A. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2024) 17 C5th 46. 

On October 20, 2022, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled in City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 CA5th 466 found that a party cannot just rely solely on Code of Civil Procedure §2023.010 in bringing a motion for discovery sanctions. Instead, a party must bring the motion for sanctions based on the abuse in relation to a specific discovery device and its statute for the imposition of sanctions. Those statutes for protective orders and motions to compel are Code of Civil Procedure §2025.410, §2025.420, §2025.430 and §2025.440 for depositions, §2030.090, §2030.290 and §2030.300 for interrogatories, §2031.060, §2031.300 and §2031.310 for requests for production, §2032.030, §2032.240, §2032.250, §2032.410. §2032.420 and §2032.620 for independent medical examinations, §2033.080, §2033.270 and §2033.290 for requests for admissions and §2034.250 and §2034.300 for experts. Otherwise, the award of sanctions is improper.

Continue Reading Where’s the Authority to Award Sanctions?

On January 1, 2023, fellow San Francisco Superior Court Pro Tem Discovery Judge, Douglas Robbins, published “The California Discovery Manual 2023,” which is full of helpful “Practice Notes.” One such practice note titled “Responding to Refusals to Answer“ provides a strategy when a deponent refuses to answer the question posed due to the instruction by their attorney not to answer. I hope you find it as helpful as I did.

“A common area of abuse occurs when attorneys instruct a witness to not answer a deposition question. Instructions to refuse to answer should occur only in response to questions implicating a privilege or right such as the attorney-client privilege, the spousal/marital privileges, the right to refrain from self-incrimination, and the like. All other objections, say for relevance, for hearsay, and even for “harassment,” cannot justify an instruction to the witness to refuse to answer. If a deposition has truly become unreasonably harassing, the deponent’s remedy is not to refuse to answer questions but rather to suspend the deposition, walk out the door, and immediately move for a protective order.

Continue Reading What to do When the Deponent Refuses to Answer 

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?

 

When the Covid-19 pandemic struck in early 2020, the legal profession scrambled as to how it could proceed without conducting business in person. Emergency Orders were issued by the Judicial Counsel and remote depositions became an everyday occurrence.

On January 1, 2022, California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1010 titled “Oral depositions by Phone, videoconference, or other remote electronic means” was modified to reflect the practicalities of what we learned the previous two years regarding remote depositions.

Continue Reading Rule of Court Changes for Remote Depositions

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].)”

Continue Reading “You Harm Your Client’s Interest When You Craft or Transmit Evasive Discovery Responses”

Recently I was contacted by an attorney who asked:

“When does the 45 days to bring a motion to compel further responses to RPD begin? Is it when they serve their written response with an asserted privilege, or when they produce documents? The issue is over an asserted attorney client privilege. They produced redacted documents, no privilege log yet.” Continue Reading Does the 45-Day Rule Apply When No Privilege Log was Served?

Have you ever been in any of these situations?

Ten days after your client was served with the summons and complaint, the client was personally served with Form Interrogatories, 35 specially prepared interrogatories, 35 requests for admissions and 50 document requests.

Days after an unsuccessful mediation, you are served with 75 requests for admission, 60 special interrogatories, Form Interrogatory #17.1 and 100 requests for documents.  A Declaration of Necessity was served with the discovery.

Eleven days before the close of discovery, opposing counsel hand serves you with a Person Most Knowledgeable/Custodian of Records Deposition Notice with 27 separate categories for testimony and 67 requests for documents.

In each of these situations, the discovery propounded was proper according to the Code of Civil Procedure. Continue Reading WHEN YOU GET BOMBARDED WITH DISCOVERY…

Co-Written with Suzanne Martin, Esq., Director of National Accounts for Centext Legal Services.

The COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally changed the way in which depositions are conducted.  Most depositions throughout California are now conducted remotely, on virtual conferencing platforms, rather than in person, which was the modus operandi for so long. This change has brought some major benefits for counsel, witnesses, and the court reporters/videographers who are critical to the proceeding: there is much greater flexibility for all involved, as they are no longer required to travel to and from their offices or homes for each deposition, they do not need to carry their files or equipment to and from the deposition location, and they can now “attend” from anywhere, at any time, with a reliable internet connection.  Running late, stuck in traffic, and transit delays are all avoided.  Here in the Bay Area, that has been an enormous benefit simply in the efficient management of time, avoiding the ever-frustrating Bay Area freeways or less-than-reliable public transportation networks.  Virtual depositions, when counsel and witnesses are prepared and their connections are vetted, promote greater efficiency and result in less time overall to complete the examination.   Depositions tend to start on time, breaks tend to be shorter, distractions are minimized, and the preparation and management of the exhibits is streamlined.

Continue Reading What Lawyers are Getting Wrong in Virtual Depositions