A common mistake is when a responding party states, in essence, “. Once again, this response must contain certain mandatory language. ![]() For example, a typical RPD response will contain several objections, and then state: “Without waiving said objections, the responding party further responds as follows.” In such a case, you must still comply with CCP § 2031.220 and/or CCP § 2031.230 (as the case may be) to the “remainder of that item or category.”Īs to the “inability to comply” response, per CCP § 2031.230, this response is not telling the propounding party that you are “refusing” to comply, it merely tells them that you are “unable” to comply for certain reasons. This is not a code-compliant response, since it is unclear as to whether you are producing all or part of the responsive documents in your current possession, custody or control.įor a response that contains a “partial objection” to a demand, the responding party must comply with CCP § 2031.240 (a). For example, many CCP § 2031.220 responses merely state: “See the attached documents or perhaps they simply describe each document they intend or are concurrently producing with the response. A common mistake, though, is that such a formal response does not contain the mandatory language under Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 2031.220. ![]() The easiest and non-controversial response is when the responding party has agreed to produce all documents for production without objection. In short, there are four basic code-compliant responses one must utilize, in whole or in part, for each particular RPD: (1) There will be no production of any documents whatsoever based solely upon a legal objection(s) (2) There will be a production of all documents without any objection (3) There will be a production of documents, in part, in that some documents will not be produced based upon a legal objection(s) and/or an inability to comply and (4) There will be no production of any documents based upon an “inability to comply.” In essence, the responding party must choose one of these forms of responses, or perhaps even a combination of same.ĭepending on which formal response one utilizes, there will be mandatory language which must be contained in each response. The response is not intended nor designed to identify (or even actually produce) the specific documents you will be producing. The purpose of the response is to clearly inform the demanding party as to what you (the responding party) are going to do for each individual RPD. In order to approach this task, it is best to first understand the fundamental purpose of the formal response itself, as opposed to other collateral matters such as the actual production of the documents – suffice it to state, they are not the same. I estimate that I grant approximately 90+% of such motions for one simple reason: The responses at issue are not “code-compliant.” It is the goal of this article to educate both the Bar (as well as perhaps even the Bench) of the common mistakes and pitfalls concerning such formal responses, and moreover, to educate litigators as to how to ensure that their client’s formal responses to RPDs are “code-compliant.” In the last several years in which I have presided over both a Personal Injury and an Independent Calendar courtroom at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, I have found that the most typical area of discovery disputes involve a motion to compel a further response (“MTCFR”) to RPDs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |