Townsend

Townsend v. Superior Court

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 183·61 Cal. App. 4th 1431·72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 333·98 Daily Journal DAR 2419·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1778
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 10, 1998B116602California2,337 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stone, J.

— Here we determine that the requirement of informal resolution, as set forth in section 2025, subdivision (o) of the Code of Civil Procedure, is not fulfilled when the proponent, immediately following an objection, merely debates with the deponent’s counsel the propriety of the objection. In addition, we conclude that parties who are not the discovery proponents, but simply join in a motion requesting discovery sanctions, are not entitled to be awarded sanctions.

Background

Maria Caroline Townsend, petitioner (hereinafter Townsend), filed a lawsuit seeking to compel the sale of a residence. 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. Counsel for EMC and Westfall, as well as counsel for the other parties present, attempted to convince Townsend to answer these questions. She steadfastly refused to do so. Suffice it to say, the discussion between counsel became at times heated and the discovery disputes were not resolved.

EMC and Westfall moved to compel further…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.