Discovery

In a proceeding under 9 USC 7 to enforce a subpoena that an arbitrator has issued to a non-party witness, when no federal claim is at stake, a federal court has jurisdiction over the matter only if the requirements for diversity jurisdiction (including the amount in controversy requirement) are satisfied.  The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, if the value of… Read More

An order compelling a non-party deponent attorney to disclose the identity of an expert non-witness consultant he hired in a prior case was not an appealable collateral order because it related to the subject matter of the plaintiff's suit against that expert for disclosing confidential material without permission.  But the court treated the appeal as a writ petition since the… Read More

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees against plaintiff under CCP 2033.420(a) for denying requests for admission denying factual allegations at the heart of the plaintiff's claims.  Plaintiff did not bear his burden of proving that he had reasonable grounds for his denial of those requests for admission.  The trial court's denial of defendant's non-suit… Read More

The trial court prejudicially erred in granting plaintiff's in limine motion to exclude defendant from introducing evidence and seeking allocation of fault to two defendants (the State of California and an adjoining landowner) which had settled out of the case before trial.  Under Prop. 51, a defndant is entitled to have the jury allocate fault (and thus the share of… Read More

Allegedly defamatory emails that Simplified sent Trinity and a co-defendant seeking documents and other information for its later-filed lawsuit were protected activity for purposes of the Anti-SLAPP statute (CCP 425.16(e)).  The emails were also protected by the absolute litigation privilege, so Trinity could not prove a probability of success on the merits.  The trial court properly granted Simplified's Anti-SLAPP motion… Read More

A subpoena served on a third party witness to produce business records is a deposition subpoena.  If the subpoenaed witness objects rather than producing the requested documents (in whole or in part), the subpoenaing party has 60 days to move to compel compliance with the subpoena.  Meet and confer efforts in the meanwhile do not continue the 60 day deadline… Read More

CCP 2019.210 provides that in a trade secret  misappropriation case under Civ. Code 3426, before commencing discovery relating to the trade secret, the party alleging the misappropriation shall identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity.  This decision holds that the plaintiff cannot wait to raise a new alleged trade secret in opposition to a summary judgment motion directed towards its… Read More

Under CCP 2023.010 and 2023.030, providing evasive or false discovery responses is a discovery abuse for which the court must grant the opposing party monetary sanctions unless it finds there was substantial justification for the discovery abuse or awarding sanctions would be unjust.  Here, the trial court found substantial abuse of discovery in providing false responses, but erroneously failed to… Read More

Three principles govern the award of monetary sanctions for discovery abuse.  First, the court must award monetary sanctions against the loser of a discovery motion unless it finds that either the loser acted with substantial justification or imposition of sanctions would be unjust under the circumstances.  Second, the monetary sanctions may only be imposed based on attorney fees and costs… Read More

This decision outlines the seven factors a trial court should consider in deciding a third party's motion to quash a subpoena served on it by a criminal defendant.  Most important of those factors, particularly when the subpoena seeks social media posts, are the defendant's proof of a plausible justification for needing the subpoenaed documents and the consideration of privacy and… Read More