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

Author: hnku

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 … WebDec 1, 2000 · In *Rifkind v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County*, 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 822 (1994) the court held that contention questions are not proper in a deposition even though they are permissible by written interrogatories. The reasoning is that contention questions involve mixed questions of law and fact, and lay people should not …

Defending your client’s deposition - Plaintiff Magazine

WebDuring the course of the deposition, Mr. Rifkind was asked, and was instructed not to [22 Cal. App. 4th 1258] answer, three categories of questions that later became the subject of … 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 … maritza padilla

Can You Impeach With RFA Denials? – Victaulic Company’s $55 …

http://www.advancedturbinesupport.com/4npwb13/pqe37g4s/article.php?tag=objection-to-demand-for-inspection-of-premises-california WebDec 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 … WebFeb 23, 1994 · 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 822 22 Cal.App.4th 1255 Robert Gore RIFKIND, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent, Ned GOOD, Real Party in … maritza parache

MSJ denied - Advocate Magazine

WebSuperior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, in which the court condemned the practice of asking, at deposition, “legal contention questions,” such as by directing the witness to state “all facts that support the affirmative defense”; “the identity of each witness who has knowledge of any facts supporting the affirmative defense”; or the identity … 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 ... maritza otero npiWebMay 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 … maritza padilla california

"WebSuperior 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 … " - Rifkind v. superior court 22 cal.app.4th 1255

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

THERE’S THIS CASE THAT SAYS . . . (Depositions) - Discovery …

WebJun 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. WebMay 9, 2024 · The 10 causes of action are: 1) breach of contract; 2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; 3) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; 4) violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code section 12900 (discrimination, harassment and retaliation); two violations of FEHA (Gov. Code, § 12940, …

Did you know?

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2015/gons011415.htm WebFeb 26, 2024 · Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 822, holding that it was improper to ask at deposition “ ‘legal contention questions,’ ” which questions were …

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 WebJan 29, 2015 · The court then drew a parallel to Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, a well-known opinion which condemned the use of “legal contention questions” at deposition (i.e. asking a deponent to state all facts or identify all documents which support an affirmative defense).

WebHe cites authorities that have applied that kind of inference in statutory construction, including one that is fairly close to the issue before us: Irvington-Moore, Inc. v. Superior … WebSuperior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1259.) was seeking discovery of a 28-page report. 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

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. …

WebFeb 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 … maritza padilla dhrWebFeb 22, 1994 · Rifkind v. Superior Court 22 Cal.App.4th 1255 (1994) Cited 9 times California Court of Appeal February 22, 1994 EPSTEIN, Acting P.J.: The petitioner in this … maritza pichardoWebApr 11, 2024 · This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WILLIAM D. STEWART. The case status is Pending - Other Pending. Case Details Parties Documents Dockets Case Details Case Number: *******2459 Filing Date: 04/11/2024 Case Status: … maritza picazoWebYes, it is the same thing if you seek documents. endstream Did I think this was ok or not? maritza ovallesWebRifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 CA 4th 1255, 1259. Documents reviewed to prepare for deposition are discoverable. International Insurance Co. v. Montrose Chemical Corp. of California (1991) 231 CA3d 1367, 1372-73. However, privileged documents do not lose their privileged status (Sullivan v. Superior Court maritza pacheco cruz maritzapadilla85 gmail.comWebRifkind 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 … maritza pia espirito