Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Supplemental discovery in California

Supplemental discovery in California

Ratings:

4.0

(1)
|Views: 550|Likes:
Published by Stan Burman
This is issue number 4 of the weekly California legal newsletter. The topic of this issue is supplemental discovery in California. The author is a freelance paralegal who has been working in California litigation since 1995.
This is issue number 4 of the weekly California legal newsletter. The topic of this issue is supplemental discovery in California. The author is a freelance paralegal who has been working in California litigation since 1995.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Stan Burman on Sep 01, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/09/2013

pdf

text

original

 
1The topic of the newsletter this week will be the use of supplemental interrogatories and requestsfor production of documents in California litigation.A vital tool that is very underutilized is the use of a supplemental interrogatory. The reason it is sovital is due to the fact that an interrogatory may not be made a continuing one so as to impose onthe party responding to it a duty to supplement an answer to it that was initially correct andcomplete with later acquired information. See
Code of Civil Procedure
§ 2030.060(g).This means that if a party acquires information after their response to an interrogatory they do nothave to supplement their response. Unless they have been served with a supplemental interrogatoryunder 
Code of Civil Procedure
§ 2030.070. A supplemental interrogatory may be served twice before the initial setting of a trial date, and once more before the discovery cut-off date, meaningthat the supplemental interrogatory may be served up to three times.With the economic situation in California resulting in trial dates being set farther in the future than before, the use of supplemental discovery is a very useful tool in California litigation. A party mayseek leave of court to serve additional supplemental interrogatories.The use of a supplemental interrogatory is a great tool to “pin down” the opposing party’sresponses. If the opposing party does not disclose any later acquired information in their responsesto the supplemental interrogatories then the propounding party can file a motion with the court toexclude the introduction of the information on the grounds that it was not previously disclosed.And it is particularly useful when the responding party has previously responded to interrogatorieswith a “boilerplate” response such as “response made on advice of counsel or information and belief”, “discovery is continuing”, etc. If the responding party does not respond adequately to thesupplemental interrogatory they risk not being allowed to introduce any information in support of their claims or defenses due to their failure to supplement their responses.Another excellent tool is the use of a supplemental request for production and inspection of documents under 
Code of Civil Procedure
§ 2031.050.As with a supplemental interrogatory, a supplemental request for production and inspection of documents may be served twice before the initial setting of a trial date, and once more before thediscovery cut-off date. Thus a supplemental request for production and inspection of documentsmay be served up to three times. A party may seek leave of court to serve additional supplementalrequests for production and inspection of documents.As with a supplemental interrogatory, the use of a supplemental request for production andinspection of documents is a great tool to “pin down” the opposing party’s responses. If theopposing party does not disclose any later acquired documents in their responses to thesupplemental request for production and inspection of documents then the propounding party canfile a motion with the court to exclude the introduction of the documents on the grounds that it wasnot previously disclosed. Many parties respond to requests for production and inspection of documents with a “boilerplate” response such as “discovery is continuing”, etc. These are thecases where the supplemental request can be very useful. If the responding party does not respondadequately to the supplemental request for production and inspection of documents they risk not

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
conradotani liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->