Ad
related to: california form interrogatories
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The advantage of the California form interrogatories is that they do not count against the limit of 35 [5] (except when used in limited civil cases); the disadvantage is that they are written in a very generic fashion, so about half of the questions are useful only in the simplest cases. In turn, California calls custom-written interrogatories ...
California written discovery generally consists of four methods: demands for inspection (the formal statutory name for requests for production of documents), form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for admissions. [38]
Section 15 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 provided: [A]ll the said courts of the United States, shall have power in the trial of actions at law, on motion and due notice thereof being given, to require the parties to produce books or writings in their possession or power, which contain evidence pertinent to the issue, in cases and under circumstances where they might be compelled to produce the ...
California is the major "outlier" on deposition objections; under the California Civil Discovery Act as enacted in 1957 and heavily revised in 1986, most objections must be given on the record at the deposition (and must be specific as to the objectionable nature of the question or response) or they are permanently waived. [14]
Some states, like California, have different limitations set in their Local Rules. FRCP requires that the party to whom the request for Interrogatories, RFA or RFP is directed must respond in writing within 30 days after being served, otherwise the requestor can file a motion to compel discovery and for sanctions.
Requests for admission are a list of questions which are similar in some respects to interrogatories, but different in form and purpose.Each "question" is in the form of a declarative statement which the answering party must then either admit, deny, or state in detail why they can neither admit nor deny the truthfulness of the statement (e.g. for lack of knowledge, etc.).
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide in rule 7(f) that "the court may direct the government to file a bill of particulars".. In U.S. state law, the bill of particulars was abolished in nearly all court systems in the 1940s and 1950s due to the widespread recognition that much of the information requested could be obtained more efficiently through the discovery process.
In 1936, the Supreme Court of California held that because the state constitution reserves judicial decisionmaking to the judicial branch, it lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari to review the decision of a state board unless that board had been expressly authorized by the state constitution to exercise judicial power. [34]