Requesting Discovery in CA Question

[thismomhashadenough]

If I am reading my rules of procedure correctly in California I need to have discovery completed 30 days prior to trial. I am trying to put together a calendar so I don't miss anything as I progress through this mess. Does this mean I actually have to request it 65 days prior to trial? 30 days +5 that they get to respond and then the 30 days before trial? And what is the 30 days before trial for? is that when you do your motions if they don't respond or there is outstanding discovery?

[Coltfan1972]

30 days prior to trial is pretty much routine across the board. It's basically a cut off date where both sides can start to prepare for the case based on all evidence that is, in theory, fully disclosed.

The trial date will get moved further back as the need arises. It's why you might see me post a lot where I will say, "After the final date for discovery had passed, I did XXXX"

[thismomhashadenough]

Okay, thanks. I will look up your posts as the need arises. I am far off but saw that and it made me go hmmm.....

So all discovery should be requested 65 days prior so, in theory, it is received 30 days prior to trial. Yes?

[Coltfan1972]

So all discovery should be requested 65 days prior so, in theory, it is received 30 days prior to trial. Yes?

Well yes, in theory. You're in CA so I learned to 100% say, generally speaking. So generally speaking, yes you're correct.

For example, in my case, the trial date was around 45 days out. However, the third set of discovery responses made a fourth set of discovery relevant and proper. So, I hit them with a fourth set of requests and the court then pushed the trial date out another six weeks.

[thismomhashadenough]

so if discovery isn't sent to the court how did the date get pushed back by the court? Do you have to ask the court somehow?

[debtorshusband]

Not sure where you are in the process, but here's the way it works in the real world, if you will stretch credibility a bit and consider California to be the real world.

After the plaintiff files his complaint, he is supposed to serve you, the defendant. Meanwhile the court will schedule a Case Management Conference for a date about 3 1/2 months later. At this CMC the court basically wants to determine one thing: has the defendant been served? If not, the plaintiff is usually given more time, and must check back at another CMC.

If the defendant does get served, and files an Answer, this first CMC will be "vacated" automatically. And again, another CMC will be scheduled for several months down the road.

At this 2nd CMC, the court basically wants to know one thing: has Discovery been completed? It is not uncommon for Discovery to not be completed, because these attorneys for JDBs have so many cases they are pushing, and they tend to leave things for the last minute. So, they indicate Discovery has not been completed, and ask for more time. The judge grants it, and schedules the next CMC for several months down the line.

At this 3rd CMC, upon learning that Discovery has finally been completed, the judge will order that a trial be scheduled for several months down the line.

When you show up for trial, you will learn from the plaintiff's rent-a-lawyer that their witness from New York got sick and couldn't make the flight, and they will ask for and be granted a continuance, and the trial will be rescheduled for several months later.

When you show up for the second trial, you will find the plaintiff's have dismissed the case.

OK, the last two paragraphs are just my personal experience, and things may turn our slightly differently for you, but you get the general idea.

It will be a year before you go to trial, and you can see by the way the process works that getting Discovery completed before trial is not really an issue; trial won't be scheduled until the judge is informed that Discovery has been completed.

Good luck.

DH