Supplemental discovery requests in California

Supplemental discovery requests in California are the topic of this blog post.

There are two supplemental discovery requests that can be used in California. They are supplemental interrogatories and supplemental requests for production of documents.

The supplemental interrogatory is a very useful litigation tool.  The reason that a supplemental interrogatory is so useful is that Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.060(g) states in pertinent part that an interrogatory may not be made a continuing one so as to impose on the party responding to it a duty to supplement an answer to it that was initially correct and complete with later acquired information.

Unless a party has been served with a supplemental interrogatory they are not required to supplement their responses to any interrogatories even if they acquire information after their responses to interrogatories.

However a party must supplement their responses to interrogatories if they have been served with a supplemental interrogatory under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure § 2030.070.

A supplemental interrogatory may be served twice before the initial setting of a trial date, and once more before the discovery cut-off date, meaning that the supplemental interrogatory may be served up to three times.  A party may also seek leave of Court for permission to serve additional supplemental interrogatories.

With the drastically reduced court funding in California resulting in trial dates being set farther in the future than before, the use of supplemental discovery requests is a very useful tool in California litigation.

The use of a supplemental interrogatory is a great tool for “pinning down” the opposing party’s responses.   If the opposing party does not disclose any later acquired information in their responses to the supplemental interrogatory the propounding party can file a motion with the court to exclude the introduction of the information on the grounds that it was not previously disclosed.

A supplemental interrogatory is particularly useful when the responding party has previously responded to interrogatories with a “boilerplate” response such as “response made on advice of counsel or information and belief”, “discovery is continuing”, etc.  If the responding party does not respond adequately to the supplemental interrogatory they risk not being allowed to introduce any information in support of their claims or defenses due to their failure to supplement their responses.

The other supplemental discovery request that is authorized in California is a supplemental request for production and inspection of documents under Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.050.

As with a supplemental interrogatory, a supplemental request for production and inspection of documents may be served twice before the initial setting of a trial date, and once more before the discovery cut-off date.  Thus a supplemental request for production and inspection of documents may be served up to three times.  A party may seek leave of court to serve additional supplemental requests for production and inspection of documents.

As with a supplemental interrogatory, the use of a supplemental request for production and inspection of documents is a great tool for “pinning down” the opposing party’s responses.  If the opposing party does not disclose any later acquired documents in their responses to the supplemental request for production and inspection of documents then the propounding party can file a motion with the court to exclude the introduction of the documents on the grounds that it was not previously disclosed.

Many parties respond to requests for production and inspection of documents with a “boilerplate” response such as “discovery is continuing”, etc.  These situations are where the supplemental request can be very useful.  If the responding party does not respond adequately to the supplemental request for production and inspection of documents they risk not being allowed to introduce any documents in support of their claims or defenses due to their failure to supplement their responses.

An experienced litigation attorney can evaluate your situation and determine whether serving supplemental discovery requests is appropriate, or if you should file a motion for leave of court to serve additional supplemental discovery requests.  Contact attorney Nathan Mubasher for a free consultation and evaluation of your case.

Schedule a free consultation today with attorney Nathan Mubasher.

Call (800) 691-2721 and let’s talk about your options.

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR NATHAN MUBASHER:

Law Offices of Nathan Mubasher
2621 Green River Rd, Ste 105 PMB 403
Corona, CA 92882
tel 1-800-691-2721 | fax 1-310-356-3660
www.mubasherlaw.com

 DISCLAIMER:

Thank you for reading. I hope I could have been educational as I endeavor to provide my knowledge as a free public service. Please note that all the materials and information on this blog are general analyses made available for the public’s general informational purposes only. These analyses are not in any way intended to serve as specific legal advice to be applied in your particular situation. Although I am an attorney, absent a signed retention and engagement letter, I am not your attorney. There are no exceptions to this rule. Moreover, you shall not rely on the information I am providing you, as it is only for your general knowledge and educational purposes, since this information would likely change based on any additional facts. Thus the transmission and receipt of information on this blog by anyone does not form or constitute an attorney-client relationship. My knowledge of laws is limited to California. Anyone receiving any information on this blog should not act upon the information provided without first obtaining the services of professional legal counsel licensed in their respective jurisdiction. Best of luck.

 

 

Advertisements

Author: nathanmubasher

Attorney Nathan Mubasher earned a post-doctorate LL.M. in International Financial Transactions with emphasis on Money Laundering and Compliance at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, a J.D. at American College of Law, and his B.A. at University of California, Riverside. He is a member of the State Bar of California and is admitted to practice before all state and federal courts in California. He is also an active member of the American Health Lawyers Association and the California Society for Healthcare Attorneys. He has performed over 1,000 mediations and has Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) training from the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s