1The topic of the newsletter this week will be the use of supplemental interrogatories and requests for production

of documents in California litigation. A vital tool that is very underutilized is the use of a supplemental interrogatory. The reason it is so vital is due to the fact that an interrogatory may not be made a continuing one so as to impose on the party responding to it a duty to supplement an answer to it that was initially correct and complete with later acquired information. See Code of Civil Procedure 2030.060(g). This means that if a party acquires information after their response to an interrogatory they do not have to supplement their response. Unless they have been served with a supplemental interrogatory under Code of Civil Procedure 2030.070. A supplemental interrogatory may be served twice before the initial setting of a trial date, and once more before the discovery cut-off date, meaning that the supplemental interrogatory may be served up to three times. With the economic situation in California resulting in trial dates being set farther in the future than before, the use of supplemental discovery is a very useful tool in California litigation. A party may seek leave of court to serve additional supplemental interrogatories. The use of a supplemental interrogatory is a great tool to pin down the opposing partys responses. If the opposing party does not disclose any later acquired information in their responses to the supplemental interrogatories then the propounding party can file a motion with the court to exclude the introduction of the information on the grounds that it was not previously disclosed. And it is particularly useful when the responding party has previously responded to interrogatories with a boilerplate response such as response made on advice of counsel or information and belief, discovery is continuing, etc. If the responding party does not respond adequately to the supplemental interrogatory they risk not being allowed to introduce any information in support of their claims or defenses due to their failure to supplement their responses. Another excellent tool is the use of a supplemental request for production and inspection of documents under Code of Civil Procedure 2031.050. As with a supplemental interrogatory, a supplemental request for production and inspection of documents may be served twice before the initial setting of a trial date, and once more before the discovery cut-off date. Thus a supplemental request for production and inspection of documents may be served up to three times. A party may seek leave of court to serve additional supplemental requests for production and inspection of documents. As with a supplemental interrogatory, the use of a supplemental request for production and inspection of documents is a great tool to pin down the opposing partys responses. If the opposing party does not disclose any later acquired documents in their responses to the supplemental request for production and inspection of documents then the propounding party can file a motion with the court to exclude the introduction of the documents on the grounds that it was not previously disclosed. Many parties respond to requests for production and inspection of documents with a boilerplate response such as discovery is continuing, etc. These are the cases where the supplemental request can be very useful. If the responding party does not respond adequately to the supplemental request for production and inspection of documents they risk not

being allowed to introduce any documents in support of their claims or defenses due to their failure to supplement their responses. If you enjoy this newsletter, tell others about it. They can subscribe by visiting the following link: http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm Have a great week and thanks for being a subscriber. Yours Truly, Stan Burman The author of this newsletter, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California civil litigation since 1995. The authors website: http://www.legaldocspro.net View numerous sample document sold by the author: http://www.scribd.com/legaldocspro