Suggestions for new topics?

If any lawyers or non-lawyers out there have suggestions for any legal topics you’d like to explore, please feel free to email with any suggestions or questions.  I have a few new topics planned that I’m working on, but always open to others.

Depositions: Statutes, Cases, Rules & Tips

Accessible by clicking below is a PDF version of a two-page summary of important deposition law.  Included are statutes, cases, and applicable rules covering objections, permissible areas of questioning, interpreter qualifications, who may attend a deposition, harassing questions, etc.  This is a useful document to print-out and use if you are an attorney and either taking or defending a deposition, as the specific legal cites for the various points are all listed.

Here is a small excerpt:

IMPROPER CONDUCT BY DEPONENT’S COUNSEL
• Coaching: Coaching the deponent is potentially sanctionable as a discovery abuse under CCP § 2023.010, Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services, 186 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1562 (2010). Unilaterally going off the record is not allowed. CCP § 2025.470.

• Making Improper Objections: “Making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery” is a sanctionable misuse of the discovery process. CCP § 2023.010(e).

• Instructing Witness Not to Answer: Normally improper for counsel to instruct witness not to answer a question. Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc., 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1015 (2001). Defects in the form of the question are not grounds for instruction not to answer. Id., at 1014. Deposing counsel may suspend or complete deposition and later seek order compelling

answer. CCP § 2025.460(d) Exception: May instruct deponent not to answer, suspend deposition and move for protective if examination “being conducted in bad faith or in a manner that unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses that deponent or party.” CCP §§ 2025.470; 2025.420(b).

*** CLICK PDF LINK BELOW – “Deposition Law Overview 2015” – for a 2-page reference guide. ***

Deposition Objections Overview 2015 revision

Motion to Compel Discovery: Verified Responses Required to Start the 45 Day Deadline Countdown

Without much fanfare, an important amendment was recently made to the Discovery Act.  In the past, the deadline for filing a notice of motion for a motion to compel further discovery was always 45 days after service of the discovery responses.  However, the Discovery Act had been unclear as to whether the 45 day time period started when verified responses were served, or when merely unverified responses were served.  Under Appleton v. Superior Court, 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636 (1988), unverified responses were considered the equivalent of no responses at all, so the state of the law was unclear as to when the 45 day countdown began because it was unclear if the 45 day countdown started only once a verification was received.

Now, it is confirmed that the 45 day deadline does not start counting down until verified responses are served.  Senate Bill AB 1183 amended Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c), and 2033.290(c) to reflect that motions to compel further responses from interrogatories, inspection demands, or requests for admissions do not need to be filed until 45 days after verified responses are served.

Link to codes: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&group=02001-03000&file=2030.210-2030.310