Source: https://fightforeclosure.net/2014/05/13/how-california-pro-se-homeowners-andor-their-attorneys-can-effectively-respond-to-interrogatories/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 13:35:34+00:00

Document:
Many Homeowners defending their Homes from pretender lenders either in State or Federal courts must know how to effectively push the Banks to the corner using litigation proceedings in order to get the Banks to either modify their mortgage loans or pay damages as a result of fraudulent mortgage transactions.
One of the tools that Homeowners and/or their foreclosure Defense Attorneys must be employed to accomplish that task during litigation proceeding is “interrogatory”, which is part of the Discovery process.
permit all parties to identify essential issues necessary to evaluate the case and prepare for depositions and trial. Written discovery usually starts with form interrogatories and special interrogatories.
Unfortunately, all too often, the defense interrogatories are prepared by an inexperienced attorney, generating extra billing hours by propounding useless repetitive questions which are often sent without regard to your client’s privacy rights or the relevant issues in the case. The discovery propounded by defense firms are too often boilerplate forms which have not been tailored to the specific case and may not even have been reviewed by the propounding attorney.
Responding to this discovery can be an arduous and unpleasant task. Huge amounts of time can be consumed in preparing responses to some of the nonsense propounded.
What makes the problem even more challenging is that you must ensure that you accurately and completely respond to valid interrogatories. Failure to provide responsive information to proper interrogatories is both improper and unethical. It can also result in a bar to presenting that evidence at trial. Just as important, significant information about your case must be provided if you expect the defense to engage in meaningful mediation.
Given that backdrop, as to each interrogatory propounded, the first question you must ask yourself is “must I object?” The next thought you should have is “should I object,” followed by what “objections are available?” Once you have completed that analysis and asserted proper objections, the final question you must decide is whether to answer the question once the objection is stated.
While this article will focus on specific objections, the procedure in responding to discovery is important. Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290 provides that if responses to interrogatories are not timely, all objections are waived, including the work product protection.
practice in written discovery to state all applicable objections in your initial written response.
There are exceptions to waiver. For example, a delayed objection on the grounds of privacy.
Homeowner Attorney’s job is not only to prosecute your client’s case, but also to protect their client’s privacy.
When the defense starts seeking information not related to the issue at bar, or other personal information, it is the Attorney’s job to defend his client’s privacy, even if it might be easier to simply give the defense what they are asking for.
plaintiff’s attorney is to avoid the fight. Pick your battles wisely.
information that will not hurt your case and does not invade your client’s privacy, answer the question.
think you are hiding something important.
will notice and appreciate this kind of consistency.
vague, ambiguous, overbroad, burdensome, oppressive, and not likely to lead to admissible evidence.
Therefore, set forth below are suggested objections to the most common discovery issues.
“Objection. This discovery request as phrased is argumentative. It requires the adoption of an assumption, which is improper.” Any discovery request that requires the adoption of an assumption is argumentative. This is objectionable as to form. The classic example is “When did you stop beating your wife.” This question assumes facts that may not be true, but requires the answer adopt the assumption.
irrespective of the phrasing of the request, it may be grounds for a protective order based upon oppression.
Mack v. Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 7, 10 [66 Cal.Rptr. 280, 283] .
product objection: Mack v. Superior Court of Sacramento County; Williamson v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1978) 21 Cal.3d 829 [148 Cal.Rptr. 39]; Brown v. Superior Court of Butte County, (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 430 [32 Cal.Rptr. 527]; and Nacht & Lewis Architects v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214 [54 Cal.Rptr.2d 575].
work-product of an attorney’s employees and agents, it includes the opinions of employees and agents.
“Objection. This discovery request is so broad and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, and is oppressive.
While this is often a valid objection, it is rarely a basis for not providing a response. Before standing on this objection, sincere meet and confer efforts should be made to resolve the issue.
Furthermore, personal financial information is within the “zone of privacy” protected by the California Constitution, Article I, §1. (Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656 [125 Cal.Rptr. 553, 555]). The Insurance Information Act and Privacy Protection Act, Insurace Code section 793, et seq., limits the disclosure of information in connection with insurance transactions. (Griffith v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co.
Unless the case involves an exception to the collateral source rule (Civil Code section 3333.1 or Government Code section 985), an objection should be asserted to providing any information about health insurance, health insurance policies or payments made by a health insurance or other insurance company, including an objection to Form Interrogatory No. 4.1. Asserting such an objection is particularly important in today’s climate in which some judges have interpreted Hanif v. Housing Authority of Yolo County (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 635 [246 Cal.Rptr.
192] to require a post-verdict hearing to reduce plaintiff’s medical bills to the amount actually paid.
An increasing number of bench officers do not agree that the Hanif case gives the defendant a right to such a post-trial hearing or reduction, which effectively abrogates the collateral source rule.
what the insurance company paid on behalf of its insured.
These “standard” objections are a helpful starting point in dealing with interrogatory responses.
your case. On more important issues, it is always worthwhile to check all citations and check for any changes in the law.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1
 v. 
 v. 
 v.