Chrysler Pacifica Cargo Space With Seats Down, Articles D

The Court explained that Evid. In addition, the Court maintained that Code Civ. 2034(c) (see now Code Civ. at 579. at 860. at 278. 12 Grounds for Objecting to Interrogatories - CEBblog at 271. The nonparty witness opposed the motion on the ground that the subpoena served on him was invalid because it was unaccompanied by a supporting affidavit or declaration. The Court claimed that Plaintiffs response was filed before the hearing on the Motion and even before the Motion was filed and found that the Plaintiffs RFAs substantially complied with section 2033.220 as they were: (1) verified by the party; (2) contained responses to a majority of the individual RFAs that were code compliant; (3) contained substantive responses; and, (4) was served well before the hearing. at 59-61. Recognizing that a trial courts discretion in discovery matters is broad, if there is no legal basis for an exercise of that discretion it must be held that an abuse of discretion occurred (internal citations omitted). Id. at 388. The receiver contested the order. The Court explains that the decision to call or not to call a witness is made after consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of a case and the legal theory chose by the attorney. Defendants propounded 119 request for admissions directed to plaintiff. Plaintiff brought a breach of contract action alleging wrongful termination from defendant employer. Id. The Court of Appeal asserted that the trial court had discretion and errored in failing to exercise discretion when asked to do so. at 401. The actions were consolidated. The subpoena did not identify any specific document, but merely described broad categories of documents and other materials. The Court maintained that unlike the other 5 discovery tools which seek to obtain proof, RFAs seek to eliminate the need for proof. Defendant then filed a motion requesting that the RFAs be deemed admitted, pursuant to CCP 2033.280 (b), without any attempt to meet and confer.