© Richard E. Best 1998-2006 all rights reserved
|
DISCOVERY
|
CAL. LEGAL RESOURCES |
DISCOVERY REFEREE |
FEDERAL
RESOURCES |
CONTACT E-discovery |
DISCOVERY CUTOFF
Motion Cutoff & Discovery
Cutoff
contents
ARBITRATION CUTOFF & DISCOVERY
REOPENING OR EXTENSION OF CUTOFF
Beverly Hospital v. Superior Court (1993), 19
Cal.App.4th1289, 1293,1295
Fairmont Insurance Co. v. Superior Court(2000), 22 Cal.4th 245
see also Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1998 reversed 1/27/00), 66 Cal.App.4th
1294
Guzman v. Superior Court(1993), 19 Cal.App.4th 705
Hirano v.Hirano
(2d Dist., Div. 8;December 19, 2007) (As modified
Jan.2, 2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1
McCormick v. Sentinel Life (1984), 153 Cal.App.3d 1030
McMillan v. Superior Court(1983), 146 Cal.App.3d 1014
Regan v. Lanet(1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 353
Roe v. Superior Court (1990), 224 Cal.App.3d 642, 645
INITIAL TRIAL DATE CUTOFF [CCP §2024.020]
Discovery completed 30 days prior
Motions heard 15 days prior
Initial trial date:Mistrial, new trial, or reversal on appeal of judgment following dispositive motion restarts time limitations on discovery based on the new "initial" trial date
Beverly Hospital v. Superior Court(1993), 19 Cal.App.4th1289
Province v. Center for Women's Health & Family Birth(1993), 20 Cal.App.4th 1673, 1684
Guzman v. Superior Court(1993), 19 Cal.App.4th 705[new trial on dgs; tr ct re'vd for denying mot to designate experts]
Fairmont Insurance Co. v. Superior Court(2000), 22 Cal.4th 245 [Beverly Hospital followed. Ct App was reversed after it rejected the reopening of discovery after a new trail was granted; Sup.Ct also suggests at page 253 that reversal of a dispositive motion such as summary judgment or demurrer would automatically reopen discovery. The purpose of the statutory amendment inserting the word initially was to avoid the discovery abuse of parties seeking continuances for the purpose of reopening discovery. p.251]
Hirano v.Hirano (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 8;December 19, 2007) (As modified Jan.2, 2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1. After reversal of judgment entered after dismissal for failure to prosecute and remand for a trial, discovery reopens. The prior demand for exchange of experts in the first action does not require a response in the second.
"When the prior judgment was reversed, the matter remanded and a new initial trial date set, discovery was automatically reopened. (Fairmont, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 250; Beverly Hospital, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th 1289.) Because neither party made a section 2034.210 demand for exchange of expert witness information in connection with the new initial trial date, neither was required to comply with section 2034.260. (West Hills, supra, 98 Cal.App.3d at p. 660.) Accordingly, the trial court erred in excluding appellant’s expert witness evidence on the grounds that appellant failed to make a timely exchange of expert witness information."
Prior law did not specify "initial" trial date
EXPERT DISCOVERY CUTOFF [CCP 2024.030, 1141.24]
ARBITRATION CUTOFF & DISCOVERY [CCP 2024.040(a)]
CCP 2024.040(a) defers to judicial council rule:
CRC Rule1612 cutoff "...discovery ...completed ...15 days prior to date set [not "initial" date]
CCP 1141.24: No discovery after arbitration. except re experts, per stip, or per court order upon good cause showing
Discovery Cutoff inapplicable to arbitration pursuant to election or stipulation
McMillan v. Superior Court(1983),
REOPENING OR
EXTENSION OF CUTOFF
Continuance or postponement of trial does not automatically reopen[2024.020(b)]
CCP 2024.050[ motion] & 2024.060[agreement: confirm in writing / specific date]
Beverly Hospital v. Superior Court (1993), 19 Cal.App.4th1289, 1293,1295
Roe v. Superior Court (1990), 224 Cal. App.3rd642, 646
Fairmont Insurance Co. v. Superior Court(2000), 22 Cal.4th 245, 251 [discovery cutoff provisions added "initial" to correct abuse of parties seeking short continuances for the purpose of reopening discovery.]Mistrial, new trial, or reversal on appeal reopens discovery
Beverly Hospital v. Superior Court(1993), 19 Cal.App.4th1289
Fairmont Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (2000), 22 Cal.4th 245 [After reversal on appeal, tr ct permitted discovery based on new "initial trial date; App.Ct rev'd tr ct.; Supreme Court reversed appellate court for not following Beverly Hospital]Motion to reopen [CCP 2024.050 factors]
Regan v. Lanet(1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 353[lst atty did no discovery & 2d atty. sub in after arbitration; tr.ct. den. disc.; aff'd]
McCormick at p. 1050 [Reopening denied; Complexity of case and out of state location of witnesses not good cause for reopening discovery: complexity; importance & location etc. of witnesses existed and known prior to arbitration i.e. nothing changed]
ARBITRATION
CONTINUANCE [C.C.P.
§1141.24]
Continuance or vacating of arbitration reopens or extends discovery based on new date
Roe v. Superior Court(1990)[Tr date vacated, at issue stricken & arbitration vacated; RD: tr date cutoff of 2024(a) based on "initial" tr date; jud council Rule 1612 permitted by 2024(b) not based on "initial" date]
See also change in law in 1986 to add "initial" & prior case reopening discovery on continuance of trial
