Discovery

Employer's arbitration clause was unenforceable because it was unconscionable.  The clause was a mandatory, non-negotiable requirement of employment.  It was procedurally unconscionable because it was given to plaintiff only in English, which he cannot read, and without a schedule of the arbitration fees he could be charged.  It was substantively unconscionable because it allowed the arbitrator to shift attorney fees… Read More

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 28(b)(5) grants crime victims the right to “refuse an interview, deposition, or discovery request by the defendant, the defendant’s attorney, or any other person acting on behalf of the defendant, and to set reasonable conditions on the conduct of any such interview to which the victim consents.”  This decision holds that this provision which was… Read More

In most arbitrations, the arbitrator decides any issues regarding discovery.  Not so in uninsured/underinsured motorist arbitrations under Ins. Code 11580.2(f).  The court decides discovery issues in those types of arbitration proceedings.  This decision holds that the trial court's discovery rulings cannot be challenged on an appeal from an order confirming the arbitration award because error in discovery rulings by a… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to compel Yelp to produce the source code for its software that filters unreliable reviews from its website.  The battling experts disagreed as to the usefulness of the source code in proving whether Yelp's reviews were "trustworthy" as advertised.  Yelp demonstrated that production of the source code would… Read More

California's Electronic Discovery Act (CCP 1985.8) requires a trial court to protect a third party witness from undue burden and expense in producing electronically stored information in response to a third-party subpoena.  Here, the trial court properly applied the statute and did not abuse its discretion in ordering plaintiff to pay $130,000 which represented half the cost of the Department… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs against plaintiff under CCP 2033.420 for having denied defendant's requests of admission regarding the breach of oral promise claim alleged in the complaint.  The evidence at trial showed that plaintiff could not have maintained a good faith belief, at the time he denied those requests, that he would prevail… Read More

Under the federal recalcitrant witness statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1826(a), when a witness refuses to testify or provide other information, including documentary evidence, the court “may summarily order his confinement . . . until such time as the witness is willing to give such testimony or provide such information.”  This decision holds that section 1826 applies to post-judgment as well… Read More

Though noting a split of authority on the issue, this decision follows Lossing v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 635 in holding that a civil contempt proceeding brought to enforce discovery orders (in this case, post-judgment discovery orders) cannot form the basis of a later malicious prosecution action. Read More

Noting the split of authorities on this issue, this decision follows Cooksey v. Alexakis (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 246 in holding that a party who seeks a continuance under section 437c(h), must show why the discovery necessary to oppose the motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication could not have been completed sooner, and accordingly requires the court to grant the… Read More

Under CCP 2025.295, the deposition of a plaintiff can take no longer than 7 hours if (a) the action is for injury or illness from mesothelioma, and (b) a doctor certifies that the plaintiff suffers from mesothelioma raising a substantial medical doubt that plaintiff will survive beyond six months.  If more than 20 defendants appear at the deposition, the court… Read More