![]() (2001) (applying Obregon’s meet-and-confer factors and upholding a motion to compel deposition answers where the objections were made during a deposition so counsel had an opportunity to discuss the matter face-to-face at the time the discovery dispute arose over a relatively simple issue). 4th 424 (outlining the relevant factors for determining whether a party has made an adequate attempt at informal resolution and finding that the plaintiff should have made a greater effort than a single brief letter to defendant after defendant’s objections to plaintiff’s grossly overbroad interrogatories) Steward v. How extensive does this informal effort to resolve the issues have to be? It is likely that the more complex the discovery issue is, the greater effort may be required modest effort may suffice in a simpler and more focused case. 4th 1431 (holding that a good faith attempt at informal resolution requires more than bickering at a deposition). The Discovery Act requires counsel make a reasonable and good faith attempt to discuss the matter, compare their views and consult the issues thoroughly. Prior to initiating a motion to compel, the moving party is required to declare that he or she has made a serious attempt to obtain “an informal resolution of each issue.” CAL. 4th 1403 (finding that the 45 day deadline for bringing a motion to compel discovery is jurisdictional and the court’s only authority after its expiration to rule on the motion is to deny it). If this informal negotiation fails to resolve the issue, the dissatisfied party has 45 days to move to compel a further discovery response by court order, with the losing party likely to face mandatory monetary sanctions unless the court finds “substantial justification” for that party’s position or other circumstances which would make the imposition of sanctions unjust. If the meet and confer process is skipped, monetary sanctions are mandatory. ![]() When faced with what appears to be an inadequate discovery response, the California Code of Civil Procedure dictates that parties are to meet and confer in an attempt to resolve the dispute informally. This article explores the intersection of uncertainty when it comes to a perceived inadequate document production and why mere speculation may not be enough, especially when a third party is hired to preserve and retrieve electronically stored information. A court will likely hold a vendor’s eDiscovery mistake on the party responsible for complying with the production. One thing is clear, third party vendors are not full proof. This uncertainty is heightened by the expanse of eDiscovery in recent years and the increased reliance upon third party vendors to assist with this process. ![]() However, when faced with the question of just how sure you or your client are that the opposing party has failed to deliver complete responses to a request for production of documents for example, mere speculation as to that inadequacy may not be enough to convince a court to compel further responses. This includes the ability to file a motion to compel further responses and seek sanctions for discovery abuses. California’s Civil Discovery Act provides specific devices to ensure discovery stays on track during litigation. It is far too common during the discovery process to receive responses to written discovery requests that appear to fall short of being full and complete. Speculation and the Inadequate Document Production
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |