Source: http://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/objections/
Timestamp: 2016-10-26 23:01:04
Document Index: 587864371

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2031', '§2031', '§2031', '§6', '§2017', '§2017', '§2017', '§2017', '§2017', '§2025']

The Pitfalls of Bad Discovery Habits By Katherine Gallo on March 15, 2016 Posted in Interrogatories, Objections, Sanctions For years I have been blogging about bad discovery habits from Garbage Objections to unauthorized General Objections, and preached that attorneys must play by the rules. As you know if you have read my blogs, I am quite the supporter of the 1986 Discovery Act, and often express my opinions on a party’s responsibility during the discovery process. More importantly, I attempt to educate lawyers about the Discovery Act so they can be well prepared with their arguments when the court makes a wrong turn (yes, it does happen).
DISCOVERY GAMES AND MISCONCEPTIONS – Is the Court Correct That There is No Motion to Strike in Discovery? By Katherine Gallo on February 23, 2016 Posted in Abuse, Compel Further Responses, Interrogatories, Objections, Request for Production of documents, Sanctions Recently I received an e-mail from an attorney who followed my advice regarding General Objections. It went like this:
Why You Need to Bring a Motion to Strike General Objections By Katherine Gallo on October 9, 2014 Posted in Compel Further Responses, Interrogatories, Motions, Objections, Privileges, Request for Admissions, Sanctions 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:
What is a General Objection? By Katherine Gallo on September 9, 2014 Posted in Compel Further Responses, Interrogatories, Objections, Request for Admissions, Request for Production of documents 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.
When Discovery Abuse is a Trial Strategy By Katherine Gallo on January 28, 2014 Posted in Abuse, Compel Further Responses, Depositions, Meet and Confer, Motions to Compel, Objections, Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK), Request for Production of documents, Sanctions During my seminar on “Sanctions Denied,” I was asked how do you handle discovery abuse when it is part of a deep pocket defendant’s litigation strategy. His story went like this:
Acted with Substantial Justification By Katherine Gallo on September 5, 2012 Posted in Objections, Privileges, Sanctions A fellow Bay Area attorney contacted me about being sanctioned in excess of $5,000. He was mortified, as it was the first time he had ever been sanctioned and couldn’t believe the amount he was sanctioned under the circumstances. After I had spoken to him about his remedies, one being, a Writ (pdf), he wrote me the following e-mail.
The Document from Hell–aka The “Privilege Log” By Katherine Gallo on January 31, 2012 Posted in Objections, Request for Production of documents In responding to Requests for Production of documents you have three response choices (1) agree to produce (C.C.P. §2031.220 (pdf)); (2) state that after a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry you have no documents (C.C.P. §2031.230 (pdf)) or (3) object C.C.P. §2031.240 (pdf). Continue Reading The Document from Hell–aka The “Privilege Log”
Quoting Shakespeare By Katherine Gallo on January 12, 2012 Posted in Abuse, Motions, Objections, Professionalism, Sanctions Last spring I had the pleasure of taking a tour of the Royal Globe Theatre in London, England. On display there was a plaque titled “Quoting Shakespeare.” It began by stating:
DEPOSITONS–What are the Real Objections? By Katherine Gallo on January 3, 2011 Posted in Depositions, Objections, Privileges In the spirit of my most recent blog, “OBJECTION!! There’s this case that says . . . “, here is a list of proper and improper objections to deposition questions that you should also keep in the back of your legal pad. OBJECTIONS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS
Speaking objections which counsel explains his rationale for the objection is improper as it is usually used as a tactic to give the deponent a heads up that the area of questioning is dangerous and how he should answer. This is a form of “coaching” the witness and a protective order may need to be sought. See CEB, California Civil Discovery Practice (4th ed. 2010) §6:100. Continue Reading DEPOSITONS–What are the Real Objections?
“OBJECTION” — There’s this case that says… By Katherine Gallo on December 20, 2010 Posted in Depositions, Objections Have you ever been in a middle of a deposition and found yourself saying “OBJECTION!! There’s this case that says . . . “ but you can’t quite remember what the name was, where you saw it or even where you might find it? And, yet, it is right on point. Well, the following is a list of cases and statutes for depositions that you should keep in the back of your legal pad as they may come in handy.
SCOPE OF DEPOSITION
Discovery is permissible if the information sought is relevant to the subject matter involved and it is admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. C.C.P. §2017.010 (pdf) Admissibility is not the test. Weil and Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2010) ¶8:68 (citing C.C.P. §2017.010 citing Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 C3d 291 (pdf), 301).
Fishing expeditions are permissible. Weil and Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2010) ¶8:728 (citing C.C.P. §2017.010 citing Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court(1961) 56 C2d 355 (pdf), 384).
Identity and location of witnesses are discoverable. C.C.P. §2017.010
Existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any document, tangible thing, or land or other property is discoverable. C.C.P. §2017.010
“Show me” questions (requesting a deponent to demonstrate an action) at a videotaped deposition are allowed. Emerson Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 16 C4th 1101 (pdf), 1111. Improper to ask a party to state their legal contentions. Rifkind v. Superior Court(1994) 22 CA 4th 1255 (pdf), 1259. This is because legal contentions are developed by the lawyer. The proper discovery device to find out about legal contentions are interrogatories.
Documents reviewed to prepare for deposition are discoverable. International Insurance Co. v. Montrose Chemical Corp. of California (1991) 231 CA3d 1367 (pdf), 1372-73. However, privileged documents do not lose their privileged status (Sullivan v. Superior Court (1972) 29 CA3d 64 (pdf), 68), unless the witness claims no present memory of the events recorded in the statement given to his or her attorney and uses that statement to testify. Kerns Const. Co. v Superior Court (1968) 266 CA2d 405 (pdf), 410.
CONDUCT DURING DEPOSITION
Team questioning not per se abusive. Rockwell International Inc. v. Pos-A traction Industries (9th Circuit 1983) 712 F2d 1324, 1325–applying California Law. See Weil and Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2010) ¶8:718.1
Coaching the witness during deposition not prohibited. Weil and Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2010) ¶8:721. However, Hall v. Clifton Precision (ED PA 1993) 150 FRD 525, 528 (decided under Federal Rules) states that “[o]nce a deposition begins, the deponent must be left “on his or her own.”
Deposition officer may not suspend taking testimony unless there is a stipulation of all counsel or the deposition is suspended for a party to seek a protective order. C.C.P. §2025.470 (pdf). NEXT: DEPOSITONS–What are the Real Objections?
Continue Reading “OBJECTION” — There’s this case that says…