thunderCA Posted March 24, 2012 Report Share Posted March 24, 2012 Sent my discovery responses back to the plaintiff got a letter stating that my responses were improper because I didn't capitalize something. They cite California code of civil procedure 2030.060 (e) which is:(e) Any term specially defined in a set of interrogatories shallbe typed with all letters capitalized wherever that term appears.Says I need to make further responses within 10 days. Not sure what they are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calawyer Posted March 24, 2012 Report Share Posted March 24, 2012 Sent my discovery responses back to the plaintiff got a letter stating that my responses were improper because I didn't capitalize something. They cite California code of civil procedure 2030.060 (e) which is:(e) Any term specially defined in a set of interrogatories shallbe typed with all letters capitalized wherever that term appears.Says I need to make further responses within 10 days. Not sure what they are talking about.This doesn't make sense. CCP 2030.060 (e) is a requirement for the form of an interrogatory not a response. Are you sure plaintiff is not saying that you failed to consider a definition when you responded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippy1960 Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 Thunder,I have reviewed your threads and with the informaiton you have provided they seemed to believe that your answers to the "interoggatories" are incomplete.The issues arises in that they believe, that because they outlined in Interoggatory #1 definitions related to the following terms-YOU ("YOU" and "YOUR" shall mean and refer to defendant, DEFENDENT, and any dependents, and/or any other person acting or purporting to act on behalf of defendant.) PLAINTIFF ("PLAINTIFF" shall mean and refer to plaintiff, PLAINTIFF, LLC, and any dependents, and/or any other person acting or purporting to act on behalf of plaintiff)That each interrogatory after this they aren't required to include these definitions in the interrogatory itself.CCP 2030.60 (d) which states-(d) Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included with a set of interrogatories unless it has been approved under Chapter 17 (commencing with Section 2033.710).My understanding and from an article by an attorney from California, that your objection is well founded. If they want to use terms that need to be defined then the definition needs to be in each interoggatory, i.e. "full and complete in and of itself".While in Pleading papers you define the term "Defendant" and then use that throughout the pleading, but for Discovery based on CCP 2030.60 (d), they need to include the definition in each interrogatory.I believe you are on sound footing in your objection, and they can easily resubmit all but interrogatories #1 and #4, which you did answer. If they form the interrogatory correctly, you will answer correctly as you did in numbers 1 and 4.So I would send them a simple note back that says if you form the interrogatory correctly with all the defintions so that they are full and complete in and of itself" you will be happy to answer as you did for #1 and #4.Look at it this way, you are forcing them to do some additional work, actual lawyer work. They are so used to copy and pasting adding your name to the same set of interrogg's they use in every other case that the defendant answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calawyer Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 I think I understand. If you objected because a term was not defined each and every time it appears in the interrogatories, I am afraid that objection is not well-taken (sorry to disagree with you again Skippy).There are two sections at play in CCP 2030.60: (d) Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and ofitself. No preface or instruction shall be included with a set ofinterrogatories unless it has been approved under Chapter 17(commencing with Section 2033.710). (e) Any term specially defined in a set of interrogatories shallbe typed with all letters capitalized wherever that term appears.The way California lawyers interpret the above is that you can't have a separate definitions section (like we do for document demands). So the first time the term appears, you define it in that interrogatory. Thereafter, it should appear in all caps.This is the way we have been doing it ever since this section was amended. I don't think there is a chance that a Judge would agree with this objection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippy1960 Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 Given Calawyers comments best to answer the other interogg's, you may send them a note and that you will supply answers by a date certain if you need a bit more time than 10 days.This will buy some time to complete, and they are less likely to file a MTC discovery, which could be harmful to you.I have noticed in my jurisdiction the courts have been hand out sanctions, fairly frequently, this happen around the end of last year. Before it wasn't as prevelent.I never mind being corrected by Calawyer as I know it helps everyone including myself with "procedure" which is the hardest part for most pro se folks to learn and use to their advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippy1960 Posted March 25, 2012 Report Share Posted March 25, 2012 Sent you a PM.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderCA Posted March 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 Didn't think anybody replied to this thread. Thank you both.Basically what I sent was as bold here http://www.creditinfocenter.com/forums/1150325-post63.htmlThis was the full text they sent FYI:Dear Defendent: Please accept this letter as an attempt to resolve the issues related to your failure to serve proper responses to our client's Special Interrogatories, which were served on you on January 27, 2012.The responses you provided were improper in that, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 2030.060 (e,) Plaintiff identified all terms requiring special definitions. In accordance with section 2030.060, Plaintiff identified all terms by capitalizing wherever the term appeared thereafter. Demand is hereby made you provide further responses, without objections, Special Interrogatories, no later than (date 10 days from now). If we do not receive same by said date, we will be left with no alternative than to file a motion to compel, in effort to protect the interest of our client.If you would like to discuss this matter or perhaps propose an offer of settlement, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts