In a writ of mandate from a Los Angeles Superior Court case, the court clarified that a Code of Civil Procedure §2031.210, a statement of compliance (the written response) for a document demand does NOT to identify the specific request and document to which each document will pertain. Nor does the document response portion need
Malicious prosecution requires a favorable termination that ALSO reflects on the innocence of the party. (Roche v. Hyde (6/30/2020)
I see this case more as a discovery matter and a lesson for lawyers and clients not to lie. But it also stands for malicious prosecution, a favorable termination requires more than a dismissal of the underlying action. The person wrongfully sued who has prevailed must show a favorable termination on the merits that reflects
Limits on Civil Subpoenas (No Telephone records without consumer consent)
Phone company records are difficult to obtain. I say difficult, not impossible. Even with a validly issued civil subpoena, the phone company will not comply without a notarized written consent from the consumer who “owns” the phone number. You need a signed and notarized form such as this: Sprint Consent to Release Information
Pub. Util.
Evidence Exclusion as punishment for invasion of privacy, ethical violations or pretty much anything
The Courts may exclude evidence as a sanction as part of its inherent power to exclude evidence to cure violation of invasion of privacy and harassment (see Continental Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 94, 107-108) This is based upon the concept that litigation abuse shall not be tolerated. This case was about unethical ex parte communications with a current employee of a represented party (Rule 2-100).
Continue Reading Evidence Exclusion as punishment for invasion of privacy, ethical violations or pretty much anything
Don’t use pre-signed verifications with discovery! (or you may be disciplined)
Usually clients do not understand or want to respond to discovery. Same with lawyers, but be careful with pre-signed verification forms. At trial it does not look good when the client testifies he never saw the discovery before. In Drociak v State Bar (1991) 52 Cal. 3d 1085, a lawyer had obtained several pre-signed verifications
Unlawful Detainer Motions to Compel Discovery only require 5 days notice (CCP §1170.8) and oppositions may be verbal at the hearing (Rule of Court 3.1347)
CCP §1170.8 states that motions to compel may be filed with only 5 day (plus service) notice. Also oppositions and replies may be made verbally at the time of the hearing.
Rule 3.1347. Discovery motions in summary proceeding involving possession of real property
Combined Discovery Motion to Compel Initial Response (Saves money and paper!)
Usually discovery is served in groups, e.g. Form interrogatories, Request for Admissions, Request for Documents. If no response is provided I file a combined motion to compel these initial discovery responses. I did this after several judges told me why not combine them and save filing fees and paper. Once a judge told me not to do a combined motion only as a warning, not a denial of the motion. Nothing in the Rules of Court that I found say you cannot combine discovery motions. Here is my statutory analysis of this issue:
Continue Reading Combined Discovery Motion to Compel Initial Response (Saves money and paper!)
45 Day Rule Runs from date of Verified Response CCP §2031.310(a), (c)
If only objections are served, you have an unlimited amount of time to file a motions to Compel because the time limit is now based on the date of service of the verified response. New law, Stats 2013 ch 18; see CCP § 2031.310(a),(c)].