Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)


Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Defendant denied requests for admission that certain hospital records were authentic and business records.  This decision holds that the trial court erred in failing to award plaintiff the cost of proving the records were business records under CCP 2033.420. The trial court erred in denying those costs on the ground that plaintiff did not prove the records were business records… Read More

Under CCP 2033.410, a request for admissions that is not timely answered may be "deemed admitted" by court order, but the deemed admission is binding only on the party that made the admission.  An agent's deemed admissions (for failure to timely answer requests for admission) do not bind the principal codefendant, even when the basis for the action against the… Read More

A statement of compliance with a demand for production of documents does not need to identify which documents relate to specific items of the demand.  Instead, a general statement that the party will produce the requested documents suffices.  (CCP 2031.210.)  However, under CCP 2031.280(a), as recently amended, when the documents are produced, the producing party must  identify to which specific… Read More

CCP 2023.030(f) provides that "absent exceptional circumstances, the court shall not impose sanctions on a party or any attorney of a party for failure to provide electronically stored information that has been lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten as the result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system."  This decision holds that this provision does not shield… Read More

Following Canister v. Emergency Ambulance Service, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th  388, this decision holds that MICRA's one-year from discovery limitations period applies to a claim that plaintiff was injured by an automobile accident caused by the EMT's negligent driving of the ambulance taking plaintiff to a hospital.  The negligence occurred in the rendering of services for which a provider is… Read More

While in the hospital, plaintiff was assaulted by a psychiatric patient at the same hospital.  Plaintiff sued the hospital claiming it failed to take reasonable measures to protect plaintiff from the assault which it should have anticipated from information available to the hospital's psychiatrist.  This decision holds that the trial court erroneously concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to discovery… Read More

Under CCP 2023.030(f), a party cannot be sanctioned for destruction of ESI if the evidence was lost before the party that possessed or controlled it became  objectively aware the evidence was relevant to reasonably foreseeable future litigation, meaning the future litigation was probable or likely to arise from an event, and not merely when litigation was a remote possibility.  Here,… Read More

Both parts of the Discovery Act's sanctions chapter, CCP 2023.010 lists the types of discovery abuses the Legislature sought to preclude, and CCP 2023.030 lists the types of sanctions that can be awarded if authorized by a later section governing a specific discovery device, but neither of these general sections, in itself or combined with each other, authorizes imposition of… Read More

When a responding party serves both objections and answers to interrogatories, the 45-day deadline for filing a motion to compel (even if directed only against the objections) does not begin to run until the responding party serves a verification of the answers.  However, service of only a notice of motion to compel before the deadline is insufficient.  To be timely,… Read More

Under CCP 1987.2, a party that moves to quash a subpoena for that party's personal identifying information may recover attorney fees upon demonstrating (i) he prevailed on the motion to quash, (ii) the underlying action arises from the party's exercise of free speech rights on the Internet, and (iii) the plaintiff in that proceeding did not make a prima facie… Read More

The district court abused its discretion in excluding testimony from defendant's sole trial witness and in imposing monetary sanctions for defendants' purported failure to properly identify the areas of testimony of the witness--who had been identified in the defendant's initial disclosures.  Even if the initial disclosures showed only that the witness would testify about the underlying lawsuit for which the… Read More

In response to a contention interrogatory about whether plaintiff, the borrower, contended that notice of foreclosure had not been properly served, plaintiff answered "unsure."  This decision holds that plaintiff is bound by that deliberately ambiguous answer and cannot, in opposition to a summary judgment motion, suddenly claim that she now is certain she never received notice of the foreclosure sale. … Read More

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

1 2 3