Jump to content

If there is agreement for extension of discovery, questions, California


Recommended Posts

The scenario:

 

1.  A cross-complainant and the attorney for 3 cross-defendants agreed to extend time for discovery, and attorney for cross-defendants agreed to send discovery responses, with receipt of such by or on Tuesday the 15th (made up date).

 

2.  No mention was made of time for mailing.

 

3.  No discovery (RFP, admissions, special interrogatories) was received by or on the 16th-19th.

 

4. Cal CCP 2033.280 seems to say that while the motion to deem admissions admitted/motion to compel doesn't have to be granted if admissions are admitted before the hearing, sanctions shall be.   Attorney's fees are not allowed for pro se's.

 

5.  Cal CCP 2030.280 seems to say that if no interrogatories returned timely, (a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010). The court, on motion, may relieve that party from this waiver on its determination that both of the following conditions are satisfied:

 

Also, sanctions.

 

6.  Cal CCP 2031.300 seems to say that non-timely reponse with RPD the responding party waives any objection to the demand, and sanctions.

 

 

 

 

Questions:

 

1.  Do I need to take into account 3 or 5 days for mailing?   The extension agreement was for receipt by the 15th, does that or does that not automatically include 'postmarked' by the 15th?

 

2.  RE: sanctions, what else can be asked for other than copying fees and travel time to court etc (which hardly seems worth it)?  Filing fees, more worth it. Can the motion ask the judge for something to the effect of 'whatever further sanctions he deems appropriate to remind the plaintiff's to respect the court's rules and requirements'?

 

3.  Do I treat the 3 cross-defendants as 3 separate entities?  Or just one as they're all represented by the same attorney?  1 motion or 3 motions?  1 sanction or 3 sanctions?

 

4.  If the other side provides admissions 'in substantial compliance', one could put in a motion to compel further discovery/admissions.  Would that be a different/new hearing, or be tacked onto the original motion to deem admisssions admitted hearing?

 

5.  Am I correct in thinking that sanctions are a slam dunk because discovery wasn't returned timely/if discovery isn't returned timely?

 

6.  So in this scenario, I would put in 1 motion to deem admissions admitted, 1 motion to compel discovery (RPD and interrogs) with sanctions included in there somewhere.  Or would that be 1 for each of the 3 cross defendants represented by the same attorney?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Went and talked to the law library lawyer guy this morning.

(Answering my own questions here for future reference)

 

1. In CA, by statute if the other side fails to respond to discovery, no meet and confer is required before filing motions.  If they do respond but compelling is appropriate, meet and confer is required.

 

2.  If three cross defendants under the same attorney, 9 motions can be fled.  Motion to Deem Admissions Admitted, Motion to compel RFD, Motion to Compel Interrogs to each of the three non-responsive cross defendants..

 

3.  If both sides agree to extension of time, and the wording is 'received on or by X date', no time for mailing needs to be added.  (Hardly seems fair that Lawyers can get 600+ for sanctions for lawyer fees vs pro se's, but not vice versa.  Oh well.)

 

4. Laywer guy says judges here won't grant anything other than filing fees as sanction to a pro se/pro per.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before filing any motion, you have to meet and confer.  If they really blew the deadline, you will tell them that and demand responses that do not contain objections (or refer to documents as a response to Rogs). 

 

 

 

Hmmm.  Rereading your statement, you're saying I could have met and conferred and told them to respond without objections.   

 

So that means that if they're past time, they can't object, that the 'can't object' isn't a function of a judge ordering them to respond without objections?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.