During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

Discovery

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.

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

Like Board of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011, this writ proceeding arises from Johnson & Johnson's discovery in the county's opioid UCL, FAL and public nuisance action.  J&J subpoenaed several non-party counties to produce records of opioid prescriptions and drug treatment records with intact personal identification information to J&J's third party vendor for it to de-identify… Read More

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

1 2 3