Rifkind v. superior court 22 cal.app.4th 1255

Author: cknd

August undefined, 2024

WebSuperior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255.) You can object, but recognize the question presents the plaintiff with an opportunity to hit one out of the park. You can object, but … WebJul 28, 2024 · In Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255 , the deponent was instructed not to answer various “contention” questions. In response, the deposing party brought a motion to compel, which the court …

Four Discovery Issues in Medical Negligence Cases - CMG Law

WebMay 27, 2024 · Rifkind, an attorney, was a longtime friend of a woman whose husband was killed in a plane crash. Rifkind, 22 Cal. App. 4th at 1257. Rifkind undertook to represent … http://www.metnews.com/articles/2015/gons011415.htm metal roofs crossville tn 36 inch wide

Special interogatories in California litigation - SlideShare

WebRifkind plaintiff to own their truth. It will legal contention objections because a question incorporates the term “discrimination” or “retaliation.” (Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255.) You can object, but recognize the question presents the plaintiff with an opportunity to hit one out of the park. WebPisaro (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1591, n.12 [deposition testimony by a plaintiff on a topic in which the plaintiff is not expected to have percipient knowledge is not the equivalent of a factually devoid interrogatory response for purposes of summary judgment]; Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1260 [deposition testimony is not ... WebSuperior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, Mr. Freeman successfully argued that contention-style deposition questions are improper because it is the lawyer’s (not the client’s) role to determine which facts support the client’s contentions, even where, as in Rifkind, the client happens to be an attorney. how to abbreviate bottle

Riffing on Rifkind: Handling The Improper "Instruction Not To …

Thomas R. Freeman - Bird Marella

In Rifkind, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 822, the Court of Appeal held it was improper for a party to ask "legal contention questions" at a deposition, which the court defined as "deposition questions that ask a party deponent to state all facts, list all witnesses and identify all documents that support or … See more Because of the limited nature of the issues before us, it is not necessary to set out a detailed account of the underlying litigation, or the litigation out of which it, in … See more We emphasize at the outset what we are not discussing: questions at a deposition asking the person deposed about the basis for, or information about, a factual … See more Let an order issue, mandating the respondent court to vacate and set aside its order of June 8, 1993, directing petitioner to answer further questions at deposition … See more metal roof screws washersWebJun 4, 2024 · The Court declines to impose sanctions as the motion was granted in part and denied in part. The issue here is the application of Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255. " [T]he problem with legal contention questions has nothing to do with discoverability of the information sought. how to abbreviate bushel

"WebAn objection that every plaintiff lawyer should use is based upon Rifkind v. Sup. Ct. (Good) (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255. Rifkind is a case you need to read if you defend depositions. … " - Rifkind v. superior court 22 cal.app.4th 1255

Rifkind v. superior court 22 cal.app.4th 1255

WebAny version of that type of examination, asking a witness to explain the basis of his legal contentions, is conduct condemned in Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th … WebSuperior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, Mr. Freeman successfully argued that contention-style deposition questions are improper because it is the lawyer’s (not the …

Did you know?

WebAt the deposition, the questioning attorney then asks you to state all facts that support this defense. Such a question is not an appropriate question of a deponent (Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1263) and your attorney can object and instruct you not to answer. In case your attorney does not object and you do have to ... WebCourt (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255 (27 Cal.Rptr.2d 822]. Rifkind is an absolute must-know case for any litigator who de fends depositions, that is, all of us. It is also, sometimes, a …

WebThe superior court's orders embrace a great deal of material which Husband has produced or has agreed to produce. The financial reports of the law corporation through 1979 were produced prior to the hearing, and the 1980 reports were promised when ready. Web`specifically held that such an interrogatory must be answered. (Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) `22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1255-57 [deposition questions asking opponent “to state all facts, list all `witnesses and identify all documents that support the affirmative defenses he had asserted in his

WebYes, it is the same thing if you seek documents. endstream Did I think this was ok or not? WebSep 5, 2013 · Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1257. The California courts have ruled that the scope of discovery in California civil litigation is very broad. Any doubts are applied liberally in favor of discovery. 2.

WebJan 26, 2012 · Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1261, and cases cited.) First established as a judicial rule, the proposition has been codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.010, subdivision (b).

WebColonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1015; Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1259.) The Rifkind court found that it is improper to ask a party to state its legal contentions during deposition (and such questions that essentially ask a deponent to apply facts to law on the spot should instead be asked in ... metal roof seal coatingWebMar 23, 2024 · Superior Court, 22 Cal.App.4th 1255 (1994))“Do you contend”Identify (state) facts, witnesses, documents that support allegations Harassment – asked and … how to abbreviate building in an addresshttp://www.advancedturbinesupport.com/4npwb13/pqe37g4s/article.php?tag=objection-to-demand-for-inspection-of-premises-california metal roof sealant coatingWebFeb 29, 1996 · ( Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at pp. 552-553 .) Counsel for the moving defendant would obviously be wise to assist the trial court in this endeavor by making abundantly clear, early in the moving papers, the … how to abbreviate caWebDec 19, 2016 · Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1257 (emphasis added). And the law is well settled in California that the scope of discovery is very broad. Any doubts will be applied liberally in favor of discovery. These rules are applied liberally in … metal roof screw spacingWebAug 11, 2024 · Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1259 is misguided. (Motion 5:24-26.) ... Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 201, 215 fn. 5.) Nevertheless, based on the evidence before the Court, there is no evidence suggesting that Bryn would waive this privilege on his own. ... Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Superior ... metal roof sealant sprayWebRifkind v. Sup. Ct. (Good) (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1259, stands for the proposition that it is improper to ask your client for legal contentions and the evidence supporting legal … metal roof sealing