One of the often used garbage objections in response to written discovery, especially in document demands, is the phrase “vague, ambiguous unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and oppression and undue burden and expense.” Which is a paraphrase of Code of Civil Procedure §2023.010(c). These objections are often strung together in a single sentence with other
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?
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
What discovery methods do you consider when you are strategizing about the most effective method to obtain the information you need and pin down your opponent? If you have a contract case, think about serving a Demand for Bill of Particulars. A Demand for Bill of Particulars is NOT a discovery device, but an extension of the pleading. It is an old fashioned pleading vehicle but still an effective way to force your opponent to document the evidence of their contract or quasi contract claims, or have a court strike the claims, without the necessity of multiple motions to compel, before obtaining evidence or terminating sanctions.
Unlike Federal Rule Civil Procedure 26(e)(1) – (2), California law does not impose a continuing duty on a party to supplement their interrogatory or document responses. Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 CA 4th 1315. Instead, the California Discovery Act has two statutes, C.C.P. §2030.070 and C.C.P. § 2031.050, that allow the propounding party to ask for updated information “bearing on answers already made” and “later acquired or discovered documents, tangible things, land or other property.”
Continue Reading Are You Following Up on Your Opponent’s Discovery Responses?
Recently I was contacted to help on a party’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions. In viewing opposing counsel’s responses to the discovery, I gazed upon the General Response and Objections preamble in absolute astonishment. It read as follows:
Continue Reading Why You Need to Bring a Motion to Strike General Objections
ANSWER: A fictional document. A non-existent objection neither based in statutory authority nor found in case law. A statement by a party during the discovery phase that they will neither be held to the Code of Civil Procedure nor the rules of evidence.
In my years as a discovery referee, I have found that lawyers have gotten into the bad habit of inserting a preamble in their responses to interrogatories, requests for production and requests for admissions. These preambles often state the obvious as to what their rights are as responding parties. However, many times these preambles state general objections to the entirety of the propounded discovery and insert rights that are contrary to the obligations of the Discovery Act, the evidence code and current case law. Even though several interrogatories, requests for documents and request for admissions may be objectionable on the same ground they may not be objected to as a group. See Hogan and Weber, California Civil Discovery (2d. ed 2009) §51
Continue Reading What is a General Objection?
John Podesta, an insurance coverage attorney in San Francisco, brings us his perspective on why the Form Interrogatories for Construction Defect should be used. John has handled hundreds of coverage cases involving Construction litigation and other complex matters for over twenty years. He is a nationally known speaker on Insurance Coverage issues in Construction and has written several articles on the subject. He is also the author of the insurance Interrogatory 304.1 of Construction Litigation Form Interrogatories.
*********************************
It is generally recognized that construction defect cases are some of the most expensive, and complicated, cases being litigated in California. I have personally been involved in cases with more than 75 payors contributing to a settlement, including contractors, insurers, and sureties. I have witnessed them from the beginning of the modern Special Master programs in the 1980’s through the single assignment Special Masters (both mediator and case management/discovery referee) and the dual reference (where the case manager/discovery referee and the mediator are separated) and cases with no outside supervision and the case is handled per the CCP. In all these cases, the same question is asked by the carriers: “How can we get these cases evaluated and resolved quicker and less expensively?” And the related question: “If this is a case that needs to be tried how can we get to that decision point as soon as possible?”
Continue Reading Why Every Insurance Carrier Should Insist That The New Construction Form Interrogatories Be Used
In many cases mediation is the most cost-efficient and effective method of resolving a case. Often, litigants can save a lot of money and time when mediation is held after first tier discovery has been completed, once the core facts are determined that circumscribe the dispute. In order to facilitate early resolution many courts have implemented mediation programs and asked mediators to volunteer their time. Unfortunately, many mediators are become very discouraged with these programs because many times the parties are not prepared.
Continue Reading DISCOVERY PLAN PART 3–Are You Ready for Mediation?