Insuralex

  • The Group
    • About us
    • Current Management
    • Past Presidents
    • Membership inquiries
    • Regulatory Information
  • Experience and Vision
  • Services
  • Members
  • News + Articles
  • Reports
  • Events
  • Contact Us
  • FAQ´s
Join

California’s New Year’s Resolution: Let’s Make Discovery More Expensive

by Insuralex / Wednesday, 08 January 2020 / Published in Bullivant Houser Bailey PC, News + Articles

California has long given parties producing documents the option of producing them either as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or organized and labeled to correspond to the categories in the request for production. Institutional parties typically have preferred to produce in the manner the documents are kept in the ordinary course of business, for example, production of an insurer’s claims file in the manner it’s maintained by the insurer.

 
The produce as the documents are kept option just disappeared, absent agreement of the parties, as a consequence of an amendment to Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.280 which went into force on January 1, 2020. This means in state court producing parties, typically corporate defendants, will now have to assign every document produced to one or more of the requesting party’s document requests. That will add significant time and expense to the process of document production, particularly where there are thousands of documents being produced.
 
Ironically, the stated purpose of the amendment was to reduce litigation costs. The legislation was co-sponsored by the Consumer Attorneys of California, the plaintiff’s bar advocacy organization, and California Defense Counsel, the advocacy organization for the Association of Defense Counsel of Northern California and Nevada, and the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel. The focus was not on the party producing the documents, but on the party who requested and received the documents on the theory that requiring documents to be identified to the corresponding requests would make it easier and less expensive for the receiving party to locate and identify the documents it wants to see.
 
This is more than cost-shifting. With modern electronic document review software, a receiving party could, via full-text word searching, find the relevant documents at a lower cost than the producing party will spend cross-referencing every document to a production category. For corporate parties, particularly those being sued by individuals or small businesses, there already is an asymmetrical burden associated with document production. Starting this year, that burden just became more asymmetrical and more expensive for corporate parties. 
 
If there is good news, the legislature didn’t say how the producing party needed to identify the documents, nor did it say anything about bates numbering. So long as the cross-reference data is provided in some reasonably understandable form, be it a watermark/supplemental bates number, a log cross-referencing bates numbers to categories, or metadata in electronic production, the statutory requirements ought to be satisfied. Unfortunately, all that additional categorization will increase the review time required for each document production. That means document production just got more expensive in the California state courts.
 

Authors

Andrew-Downs

Print to PDF

Tagged under: Insurance attorneys California, Insurance Lawyers California, New California Insurance Laws for 2020

Search

Categories

  • Allende & Brea
  • Barze Taylor Noles Lowther LLC
  • Belzuz Abogados Spain
  • Belzuz Portugal
  • BLP Costa Rica
  • BLP Guatemala
  • Brigard Urrutia
  • Bullivant Houser Bailey PC
  • Carter Perry Bailey LLP
  • Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr
  • D’Empaire
  • Estudio Carvallo Abogados
  • Ferrere Abogados
  • Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A
  • Gross, Orad, Schlimoff & Co.
  • HeplerBroom LLC
  • Heuking Kühn Lüer Wojtek
  • Jáuregui y Del Valle
  • Kellerhals Carrard
  • Larson ⋅ King
  • Law Firm Paul Muylaert
  • Marlow, Adler, Abrams, Newman & Lewis
  • MehaffyWeber
  • Meridian Lawyers
  • Moreno Baldivieso
  • News + Articles
  • Olczak-Klimek van der Kroft Węgiełek
  • Osterling Abogados
  • Pereyra & Asociados
  • Pérez Bustamante & Ponce
  • Peroni Sosa Tellechea Burt & Narvaja
  • Pinheiro Neto Advogados
  • Popovici Nițu Stoica & Asociații
  • Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell
  • Reports
  • SCP Soulié & Coste-Floret
  • Studio Legale Giorgetti
  • Sucre | Arias | Reyes
  • Tramposch & Partner
  • Uncategorized
  • Zuber & Company LLC.

OUR SPONSOR

CONTACT US

Contact form

  • The Group
  • Experience and Vision
  • Services
  • Members
  • News + Articles
  • Reports
  • Events
  • Contact Us
  • FAQ´s

Insuralex is not a law firm, does not practice law and does not provide legal advice or legal opinions. Insuralex members are not a partnership of law firms or lawyers and are not affiliated or in a relationship for the joint practice of law. Insuralex member firms are strictly independent firms.

Insuralex 2022    Cookie Policy | Conditions of use | Privacy Policy | FAQ's | Contact

TOP