![]() Proc., § 2016.080(a).) This new law provides the possibility of the court giving protection against the deadlines for filing motions to compel further by allowing the court to “toll the deadline for filing a discovery motion or make any other appropriate discovery order.” (Code Civ. This bill added Section 2016.080 to the CCP, providing that a court may conduct an IDC either upon request of a party or on its own motion “for the purpose of discussing discovery disputes between the parties.” (Code Civ. 383, sponsored by Assemblymember Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park) and based upon a proposal presented by the Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles through the Conference of California Bar Associations. This situation changed when last year Governor Jerry Brown signed into law A.B. ![]() Therefore, no consequences other than a possible increase in sanctions awarded on the motion resulted from a party’s failure to appear at a scheduled IDC. In addition, before January 1, it was unclear whether a Court could compel a litigant to set or attend an IDC as a prerequisite to the filing of a motion to compel further. This situation also could result in an unwarranted solidification of the moving party’s position that was not conducive to settlement of the issues at the IDC. This situation eliminated much of the benefit of the IDC, since the motion and its attendant costs had already been incurred and the hearing time taken on the Court’s calendar. Further, a party was not required to extend the statutory time to file such a motion while an IDC was being scheduled and held. If the deadline for filing a motion to compel was approaching but the opposing party’s lawyer was unavailable to grant an extension of time to file pending an IDC or refused to do so for strategic reasons, the moving party would often be compelled to file the motion to preserve the party’s rights. ![]() Until January 1, 2018, however, the parties and the Courts lacked an established procedure for ordering IDCs and for extending deadlines for filing such motions.įor example, at times, parties would meet and confer in good faith in an attempt to resolve a discovery issue, but would be unable to reach a resolution by themselves. In an effort to address these problems, the Superior Courts have for years used Informal Discovery Conferences (IDCs) as a way to avoid the filing of motions to compel further discovery. Given the crowded calendars of our courts, the pendency of motions to compel further can stall discovery and settlement discussions, and the final result can be unsatisfying to both sides. If those efforts prove unavailing, the statutes require the preparation of seemingly endless, repetitive charts, declarations and memoranda of points and authorities, with individual, sometimes almost identical, motions required for each discovery request, and require a filing fee for each such motion. CCP section 2016.040 requires extensive “reasonable and good faith” attempts to meet and confer before filing such motions (usually involving multi-page “meet and confer letters” to which extensive responses must be prepared). These motions, brought under California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) sections 2025.480, 2030.300, 2031.310, 2032.250, 2033.080 or 2033.290 are enormously time-consuming, technical and costly. Few motions strike more fear (or at least boredom) into the hearts of attorneys than the dreaded Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |