Source: https://www.jameseducationcenter.com/articles/discovery-disputes/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:35:50+00:00

Document:
Motion to extend time, for protective order, to compel production, to compel further response, to compel compliance, sanctions.
Having a coherent game plan for minimizing the areas of possible dispute, and dealing with disputes that do arise, will go a long way toward making the process less disruptive to your handling of the case, less costly, and more likely to result in your obtaining the materials you have demanded in timely fashion. Consider the following five-stage strategy, with each part representing sequential, escalating steps in handling discovery.
If the case is sufficiently complex — seek a discovery referee.
Make a motion (compel/protective order/extension).
The easiest way to resolve a discovery dispute is to negotiate a plan of discovery that both parties can live with. In the vast majority of cases, this process will be aided by the fact that each party will need to see the other’s documents; there will therefore be opportunities for bargaining and negotiation.
Furthermore, agreeing to a discovery schedule will enhance credibility with the court, since it will be spared extensive discovery motions. “A central purpose of the Discovery Act was to keep the trial courts out of the business of refereeing day-to-day discovery by requiring parties to conduct discovery and resolve disputes with minimal judicial involvement.” [Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 22 C4th 245, 253-254, 92 CR2d 70, 76 (2000).] If it is possible to reach agreement, use of a stipulation as set forth in CCP §2016.030 can put the power of the court behind the plan.
Deal with the timing and location of productions.
Resolve objections made to particular demands (i.e., privilege, relevance).
Negotiate the terms of a protective order, if needed.
In general, be reasonable, and responsive to the legitimate concerns and difficulties of your opponent. This should ultimately redound to your benefit. For example, if you are willing to allow more time to respond to a voluminous demand, the favor will likely be returned to you at some point. Further, since settlement negotiations will often be proceeding alongside discovery negotiations, reasonable conduct in the latter might produce dividends in the former.
FORMS ON CD: See Form 21:80 Meet and Confer Letter With Regard to Responses to Requests for Document Production.
A protective order may be particularly helpful in those cases when the responding party believes that vast portions of the demand are improper and wants to get an early decision setting the scope of the case. For instance, if the demand seeks material related to parts of your business that have nothing to do with the pending case, it might be in your interest to resolve this issue earlier rather than later. Merely objecting lets your opponent determine when the issue gets resolved, while moving for a protective order allows you to take the initiative. This may be particularly important if depositions, in which parallel evidence is likely to be sought, are soon to commence.
GT, Inc. v. Superior Court, 151 CA3d 748, 751-52, 198 CR 892, 894 (1984) (order precluding competing newspaper publishers from viewing each other’s proprietary financial information – disclosure of such information limited to attorneys and experts).
Foothill Properties v. Lyon/Copley Corona Associates, 46 CA4th 1542, 1556, 54 CR2d 488, 496 (1996) (An “eyes only” protective order properly entered for profit and loss, budgetary, and business projection information).
Raymond Handling Concepts Corp. v. Superior Court, 39 CA4th 584, 590, 45 CR2d 885, 888 (1995) (disclosure permitted to counsel in “similar” cases only and only if they stipulate to being bound by protective order and notice is given to defense counsel).
If a person to whom an inspection demand is made fails to serve a timely response, the party seeking disclosure may move for an order compelling response to the inspection demand. [CCP §2031.300.] There is no meet and confer requirement prior to making such a motion, but you should make at least one telephonic and written demand prior to filing the motion.
Form 21:90 Notice of Motion to Compel Document Production.
Form 21:100 Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Document Production.
An objection in the response is without merit or too general.
Form 21:110 Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents #1.
Form 21:120 Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents.
Form 21:130 Declaration in Support of Motion to Compel Further Response #1.
Form 21:140 Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Further Response to Request for Production of Documents #2.
Form 21:150 Declaration in Support of Motion to Compel Document Production #2.
If the pleadings, other documents in the file, or other items of discovery are relevant to the motion, the party relying on them must summarize each relevant document.
FORMS ON CD:See Form 21:160 Statement of Items in Dispute in Support of Motion to Compel Further Response.
If the motion to compel has been served in an untimely fashion, move to strike it, since the court has no jurisdiction to grant the motion.
If responding party fails to permit the inspection in accordance with its statement of compliance [CCP §2031.220], the demanding party’s remedy is to file a motion compelling compliance pursuant to CCP §2031.320. There is no specific time frame within which this motion must be brought, nor is there an explicit “meet and confer” requirement. However, it is inconceivable that a motion can be brought without dialogue as to when the promised compliance will occur. Indeed, a motion to compel without a showing of meeting and conferring is doomed and likely to result in monetary sanctions against the moving party.
Karlsson v. Ford Motor Co., 140 CA4th 1202, 1220, 45 CR3d 265, 279 (2006) (in products liability action against car manufacturer, because manufacturer prevented discovery about its warnings concerning use of its lap seat belt, sanctions in the form of instructions essentially stating that no warnings were given were proper even though the owner’s manual contained some warnings).
Vallbona v. Springer, 43 CA4th 1525, 1544-45, 51 CR2d 311, 324 (1996) (evidence sanction when responding party claimed documents had been stolen, then tried to introduce the materials at trial).
Juarez v. Boy Scouts of America, 81 CA4th 377, 390, 97 CR2d 12, 21 (2000) (absent some unusual extenuating circumstances not present here, the appropriate sanction when a party repeatedly and willfully fails to provide certain evidence to the opposing party as required by the discovery rules is preclusion of that evidence from the trial — even if such a sanction proves determinative in terminating plaintiff’s case).
Pate v. Channel Lumber Co., 51 CA4th 1447, 1455, 59 CR2d 919, 924 (1997) (exclusion of unproduced documents revealed only after plaintiff had completed case in chief at trial despite reported assurances during discovery that all documents had been produced).
Deeter v. Angus, 179 CA3d 241, 254-55, 224 CR 801, 808 (1986) (exclusion of unproduced tape recording to prevent unfair surprise at trial).
West v. Johnson & Johnson Products, Inc., 174 CA3d 831, 873-74, 220 CR 437, 463 (1985) (instruction given when one wholly owned subsidiary failed to produce relevant documents of another wholly owned subsidiary and expert retained by subsidiary had access to the documents).
Judge Owen Lee Kwong is presently assigned to the Alternate Dispute Resolution Department of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Previously, he was assigned to a direct calendar fast-track civil trial court. He has presided over civil, criminal, delinquency, dependency, and probate proceedings and has sat on assignment (pro tem) on the Court of Appeal. Judge Kwong was appointed in April 1989 to the Los Angeles Municipal Court by Governor Deukmejian and elevated in January 1993 to the Los Angeles Superior Court by Governor Wilson. He was the Supervising Judge for the central arraignment courts, Los Angeles Municipal Court and Supervising Judge for the East District Juvenile Court, Los Angeles Superior Court.
Robert F. Kane practices civil and criminal trial and appellate litigation with his firm, Rockwell & Kane, located in San Francisco, California. Mr. Kane is also an Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of California, Hastings College of Law where he was named a teacher of the year in 2003. In addition, Mr. Kane serves as Judge Pro Tem for the San Francisco Superior Court and is a member of various Superior Court Arbitration and Mediation Panels. Mr. Kane is a member of various professional and community organizations, speaks frequently at seminars, has published numerous articles, is active in pro bono work, and has received many awards in connection with these activities.
Donald G. Rez has handled all types of commercial lawsuits including: trade regulation and antitrust matters (he was a student of Professor Phil Areeda at Harvard Law School); breach of contract; franchisor/franchisee matters; lender liability cases; malpractice; intellectual property and RICO cases. He has been involved in complex and sophisticated multi-district litigation and his antitrust experience has involved claims of virtually every kind.
They are the authors of California Pretrial Practice, from which this article is excerpted.

References: v. 
 §2016
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §2031
 §2031
 §2031
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.