A court may not require a deponent to answer “legal contention” questions at his or her deposition, for example, to state all facts, list all witnesses, and identify all documents that support or pertain to a particular contention in the deponent’s pleadings. These questions, while entirely appropriate for written interrogatories, are not proper at a party’s deposition.
Cases of Interest
12
Feb
Feb
The case involved claims of strict products liability and negligence against Daimler Trucks following the death of the plaintiffs’ mother, Ortiz. She was killed when a commercial truck traveling over 55 miles per hour rear-ended her car at a red light. Raising design defect and negligent design claims, the plaintiffs alleged that Daimler Trucks should be held liable for their mother’s death because it failed to equip the truck with a collision avoidance system. That system warns drivers when it detects a collision risk with a stationary object, including stopped traffic, and can automatically stop the truck when the driver fails to act. Daimler Trucks manufactured that system, but not all trucks were equipped with it.
12
Feb
Feb
The court of appeals ruled that the trial court’s decision was erroneous and held that more information needed to be disclosed. Now, the trial court needs to have further proceedings to determine how much more disclosure is required.
12
Feb
Feb
The case originates from a lawsuit filed against petitioners, who own and operate Bermuda Dunes Airport, by RPI’s owners of adjacent land, who seek to impose an easement across the airport property. The trial was originally set for May 2, 2025. On November 14, 2024, petitioners reserved an April 1, 2025, hearing date for their MSJ through the Riverside Court Reservation System. The motion was filed and served on RPI’s via email on January 10, 2025, 81 days before the hearing date and more than 30 days before trial, pursuant to statute. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(2).)
12
Feb
Feb
The goal of California’s statutory scheme governing presentation of evidence in the case-in-chief “is to avoid surprise at trial. (Staub v. Kiley (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1444, 1447, 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 104 (Staub); see also Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 781, 149 Cal.Rptr. 499 (Deyo) [“discovery laws were designed to prevent trial by ambush”].)
Surprise at trial is unfair. It also is inefficient.” (emphasis in original.)