Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

depositiondiscoveryappealmotionobjectiongood faithcivil procedurerespondent

defendantdepositiondiscoverymotionrespondent

Related Cases

Townsend v. Superior Court, 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 333, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1778, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2419

Facts

Maria Caroline Townsend initiated legal action to compel the sale of her residence. During her deposition on July 14, 1997, she objected to and refused to answer certain questions, leading to a heated exchange between her counsel and the opposing parties' counsel. EMC Mortgage Company and Westfall Realtors subsequently moved to compel further answers and sought sanctions, claiming they had made a good faith effort to resolve the issues informally. Townsend contested this, arguing that the informal resolution requirement was not satisfied.

On July 14, 1997, EMC Mortgage Company and Westfall Realtors, two defendants in this action, took her deposition. During the course of the deposition, Townsend, acting upon the advice of her counsel, objected to and refused to answer certain questions.

Issue

Did the parties fulfill the informal resolution requirement before bringing the motion to compel, and were the parties who joined the motion entitled to sanctions?

Rule

The informal resolution requirement, as set forth in section 2025, subdivision (o) of the Code of Civil Procedure, mandates that the moving party must make a serious attempt to obtain an informal resolution of each issue before initiating a motion to compel.

The Discovery Act requires that, prior to the initiation of a motion to compel, the moving party declare that he or she has made a serious attempt to obtain 'an informal resolution of each issue.'

Analysis

The court found that the discussions between counsel during the deposition did not constitute a serious effort at informal resolution, as they were primarily argumentative rather than collaborative. The court emphasized that mere debate over the propriety of objections does not satisfy the requirement for informal negotiation. Additionally, it ruled that parties who were not the discovery proponents and merely joined the motion were not entitled to sanctions.

Closer inspection of the record, however, reveals that the exchanges between counsel were plainly only argument and that there was made no effort at informal negotiation. Argument is not the same as informal negotiation.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate directing the respondent court to set aside its orders granting the motion to compel and imposing sanctions, concluding that the informal resolution requirement was not met.

Let a writ of mandate issue directing respondent court to set aside its orders granting the motion to compel and imposing monetary sanctions, and to issue a new order denying the motion and sanctions.

Who won?

Maria Caroline Townsend prevailed in the case because the court determined that the opposing parties did not fulfill the informal resolution requirement before filing their motion to compel.

Townsend sought relief by way of a writ of mandate. Because the issue tendered by Townsend is one of general import to members of the bench and bar, we have issued an order to show cause.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Dickerson v. Superior Court, 135 Cal.App.3d 93, 185 Cal.Rptr. 97

Hayes v. Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., 513 F.2d 892

Foley-Ciccantelli v. Bishop’s Grove Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 333 Wis.2d 402, 2011 WI 36, 797 N.W.2d 789

Hoffert v. General Motors Corp., 656 F.2d 161

Murphy v. Washington American League Base Ball Club, Inc., 324 F.2d 394, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 362