Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherBrowse by ChannelAbout the NetworkJoin the NetworkProductsSub-MenuProducts OverviewBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAboutContactSubscribeSupport
Book a Demo
Search
Close

Changes in Attitude—Nothing Remains Quite the Same 

By Katherine Gallo on January 17, 2024
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

There are two significant changes to the Discovery Act this year: C.C.P. §2016.090 and C.C.P. §2023.050.  My California Civil Discovery: Chart for the Everyday Litigator has been updated to reflect these changes. 

Code of Civil Procedure §2016.090—Initial Disclosures

Effective January 1, 2024, Code of Civil Procedure §2016.090 allows a party to serve a demand for Initial Disclosure.  The statute reads:

(1) Within 60 days of a demand by any party to the action, each party that has appeared in the action, including the party that made the demand, shall provide to the other parties an initial disclosure that includes all of the following information:

(A) The names, addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses of all persons likely to have discoverable information, along with the subjects of that information, that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses, or that is relevant to the subject matter of the action or the order on any motion made in that action, unless the use would be solely for impeachment. The disclosure required by this subparagraph is not required to include persons who are expert trial witnesses or are retained as consultants who may later be designated as expert trial witnesses, as that term is described in Chapter 18 (commencing with Section 2034.010) of Title 4 of Part 4.

(B) A copy, or a description by category and location, of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and may use to support its claims or defenses, or that is relevant to the subject matter of the action or the order on any motion made in that action, unless the use would be solely for impeachment.

(C) Any contractual agreement and any insurance policy under which an insurance company may be liable to satisfy, in whole or in part, a judgment entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment.

(D) Any and all contractual agreements and any and all insurance policies under which a person, as defined in Section 175 of the Evidence Code, may be liable to satisfy, in whole or in part, a judgment entered in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment. Only those provisions of an agreement that are material to the terms of the insurance, indemnification, or reimbursement are required to be included in the initial disclosure. Material provisions include, but are not limited to, the identities of parties to the agreement, the nature and limits of the coverage, and any and all documents regarding whether any insurance carrier is disputing the agreement’s or policy’s coverage of the claim involved in the action.  (C.C.P. §2016.090(a)(1))

  • A party is obligated to make its initial disclosures based on the information then reasonably available to it.  (C.C.P. §2016.090(a)(2))
  • A party’s disclosures must be verified either in a written declaration by the party or the party’s authorized representative or signed by the party’s counsel.  (C.C.P. §2016.090(a)(5))
  • A party that has made, or responded to, a demand for an initial disclosure may propound a supplemental demand twice before the initial setting of a trial date, and once after the initial setting of a trial date.  A party may also be granted a fourth disclosure upon the showing of good cause. (C.C.P. §2016.090(a)(3))
  • A party’s obligations under this section may be enforced by a court on its own motion or the motion of a party to compel disclosure.  (C.C.P. §2016.090(a)(4))
  • This statute does not apply to cases involving unlawful detainers, small claims, family law, probate, or cases granted preference.  (C.C.P. §2016.090(b))  It also does not apply to cases where a party is not represented by counsel.  (C.C.P. §2016.090(c))

While the disclosure statute was an attempt to streamline the exchange of information, the new disclosure rules are inferior to the existing statutes regarding interrogatories and requests for production of documents.  I predict that enforcement of the statute as well as any motion to exclude evidence due to the failure to provide the information in the disclosure will be difficult.  This all will be discussed in a further blog.  While the statute appears to be an easy way to seek preliminary information, I recommend that you serve the Judicial Council Form Interrogatories to obtain your opponent’s fact witness and their insurance information, and serve a standard request for production of documents that are “reasonably particularized.”  Your discovery will be due in 30 days instead of 60 days and there will be no question that your discovery requests will be enforceable.

 Mandatory Sanctions Regarding Requests for Production of Documents

On January 1, 2020, Code of Civil Procedure  §2023.050 became effective, which required the court to impose $250.00 mandatory sanctions on motions involving requests for production of documents. This set up a party’s ability to bring issue, evidence, and terminating sanctions due to the prior mandatory monetary sanction.  Effective January 1, 2024, Code of Civil Procedure §2023.050 now reads that the mandatory sanctions are $1000.00.  Remember this statute. It will come in handy.  

Katherine Gallo

Katherine Gallo is an expert in complex discovery issues and is actively involved in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a Discovery Referee, Mediator and Arbitrator in Northern California since 1994. Ms. Gallo is known for her extensive discovery seminars, in house discovery training…

Katherine Gallo is an expert in complex discovery issues and is actively involved in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a Discovery Referee, Mediator and Arbitrator in Northern California since 1994. Ms. Gallo is known for her extensive discovery seminars, in house discovery training, and go-to blog on pre-trial discovery. Since 2010, she has authored a on discovery titled www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com.

Ms. Gallo has served as a court appointed or party selected private Discovery Referee or Special Master in over 250 hotly litigated matters concerning complex issues in business, construction defect (including lines and construction operations losses), insurance, employment (including wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment, and wage and hour claims), elder abuse, real property (including eminent domain, easements, and commissions), Lemon Law, personal injury and family law, many with multiple party litigants, including class actions. Well known to the judiciary, her court appointments in complex matters have come from the Superior Courts throughout the State.

Ms. Gallo has mediated or acted as a pro tem settlement judge in over 500 matters with a 90% settlement rate. Ms. Gallo takes pride in accomplishing the parties’ and the courts’ objectives with regard to impartiality, timeliness and accuracy.

Read more about Katherine GalloEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    E-Discovery
  • Blog:
    Resolving Discovery Disputes
  • Organization:
    Katherine Gallo, Esq.
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • __

New to the Network

  • Crunched Credit
  • Nothing but Substance
  • Franchising & Distribution Law Blog
  • Business Risk Management Blog
  • Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Blog
Copyright © 2024, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo