Interrogatories Question

[oracle117]

HELP Interrogatories Question

What is the name of your state? CALIFORNIA "THE LAND OF FIRES":

QUESTION: I AM PLAINTIFF IN PI CASE.
TRIAL DATE IN JANUARY.
I RECEIVED INTERROGATORIES BACK IN MAY AND RESPONDED. NOW I HAVE UPDATED INFORMATION TO ADD THAT I HAVE SINCE OBTAINED, UPDATED MEDICAL COSTS, RECORDS, NAMES OF DOES, ETC. I DO NOT SEE ANY FORM FOR SENDING THE UPDATES TO THE DEFENSE AND CAN'T FIND ANY "HOW TO" INFO.
DO I RETYPE THE FIRST RESPONSES AND PUT IN ANY UPDATED INFORMATION IN PLACE OF THE OLD? DO I JUST STATE THE NEW INFORMATION, AND IF SO DO I PUT IT IN THE SAME FORMAT BY NUMBER ON PLEADING PAPER?
I AM NOT SURE OF THE CORRECT WAY TO DO THIS?

THANKS FOR YOUR HELP...HOPEFULLY SOON!

ORACLE117

 

[dequeendistress]

Please don't yell.

 

[stephenk]

you can do two things.

you can send a letter to defense attorney and attach the additional information.

you can prepare and serve Supplemental Interrogatory Responses. Just update the responses that pertain to the information you are providing. Verify the responses and serve by mail on the other attorney.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

you can do two things.

you can send a letter to defense attorney and attach the additional information.

you can prepare and serve Supplemental Interrogatory Responses. Just update the responses that pertain to the information you are providing. Verify the responses and serve by mail on the other attorney.

My response:

Once again, I find myself respectfully disagreeing with my collegue, Stephenk. First of all, writer, you need to understand that Stephenk IS not only an attorney, local to me - - but he's ALSO "Defense counsel". As such, he'd love to tell you that your opponent attorney would have you prepare updates to your interrogatories voluntarily. But, under the law of California, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING unless opposing counsel sends you another Interrogatory asking you to update your prior responses. Opposing counsel first needs to send you a "Supplemental Interrogatory" under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030(c)(8).

In addition to the 35-limit, a party may propound "a supplemental interrogatory" to obtain later-acquired information on matters covered by earlier interrogatories (but not on other topics). [Ca Civ Pro § 2030(c)(8)]

A supplemental interrogatory can be served at least 3 times:
• Twice prior to any trial setting; and
• Once after the initial trial setting (and before the 30-day "cut-off" on discovery proceedings before trial. [Ca Civ Pro § 2030(c)(8)]
• Further, if "good cause" is shown (e.g., lengthy continuances of the trial date), the court may permit more supplemental interrogatories. [Ca Civ Pro § 2030(c)(8)]

There is a duty to amend only when responses were erroneously given. [See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 785, 149 Cal.Rptr. 499, 511--"Where answers are erroneous, or misleading, they should be corrected long before the pretrial conference"]

There is no duty to amend responses which were initially correct and complete but which might thereafter have become misleading or inaccurate because of later-acquired information. [Ca Civ Pro § 2030(c) (7)]

"Continuing interrogatories" (putting the burden on respondent to update earlier answers) are not allowed in California. Therefore, to ensure that trial preparation reflects currently available information, a "supplemental" interrogatory should be propounded by opposing counsel, which should read something like this - -

"Please review your answers to each set of interrogatories previously served on you in this action. If for any reason any answer is no longer correct and complete, identify the answer and state whatever information is necessary to make it correct and complete as of this date."

In other words, "later acquired" information does NOT have to be served on opposing counsel UNTIL he serves you with a Supplemental Interrogatory. So, until that happens, DO NOT SERVE your new information. DO NOT do the job of opposing counsel!

I am somewhat chagrined, but not surprised, that Stephenk would advise something that the law does not require, or allow.

IAAL

 

[JETX]

So important, it HAD to be posted twice!!

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My further comment:

So, Oracle, did you read my response to you, and do you understand that you don't need to do anything "voluntarily"?

IAAL

 

[stephenk]

since the poster asked about what they wanted to provide to opposing counsel, i responded as such. if the poster doesnt want the defense to know all of their medical billing or complaints, so be it. it wont help their case by holding back information, especially medical treatment and billing related to their claim.

nothing like going to a mediation or arbitration and a plaintiff walks in with the "just happened to have these bills and records" that no one knew about but wants the defense to accept them at face value.

If the poster wants their case evaluated fully, nothing wrong with providing updated information informally like i suggested. But to hold onto vital information regarding the value of their case and support of their claim doesnt really make sense.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

nothing like going to a mediation or arbitration and a plaintiff walks in with the "just happened to have these bills and records" that no one knew about but wants the defense to accept them at face value.

===================================

My response:

Oh, please Stephen!

If you, as defense counsel, don't do your job by taking advantage of 2030(c)(8), then you deserve to get your head handed to you in an Arbitration. It's not what you, as defense counsel thinks, it's what the arbitrator thinks! This is especially so if you and I have previously agreed to a "High/Low ceiling and floor", and you think that the information you have is all there's going to be! Then you deserve to be "surprised" at arbitration, and suffer with having to pay the "higher end" of our "high/low" agreement!

Also, what are you, as defense counsel, doing in Arbitration without having served a "Supplmental Interrogatory" anyway? And, what are you doing in Arbitration without having subpoenaed the medical information; i.e., had you served a subpoena on the medical providers, you would have ALREADY had this supposed "new" information!

Good luck, Oracle, but my advice still stands - - DON'T DO the work of opposing counsel. Don't give them any further "ammunition" if you don't have to.

IAAL

 

[stephenk]

you forget i handle SIU cases. supplemental interrogatory responses are answered with "no changes to make". Then at mediation I am presented with medical records of a doctor a plaintiff went to and "forgot" to tell their attorney. Most times the attorney is just meeting their client for the first time at the mediation (contract attorney is present for plaintiff deposition) and doesnt know what is going on.

I rarely get an attorney who hides information since it is in their interest to boost the value of their cases by revealing all of the medical treatment their client underwent. If you think revealing such information is ammunition for me to use, then the value of their evidence is most likely weak.

at arbitration, even if plaintiff never serves a 1613 statement, arbitrators allow evidence of treatment revealed in discovery. The surprise stuff usually gets ignored by the arbitrator, but sometimes you get an arbitrator who is just going through the motions and allows it to be entered. But like i said, it rarely comes from the attorney. It usually is the plaintiff who doesnt tell their own attorney until the last moment.

Oh well, back to downloading scary movie 3.

 

[oracle117]

thanks for your help/your both "right"

thanks for your help on the interrogatories to stephenk and i am always liable......

you both have good points and are both "right". i did ask about how to give the defense new information/updated information since the interrogatory responses i sent months back. so stephenk was answering that question by telling me the form in which to do so.

but...i am always liable's response got me thinking about whether or not i should voluntarily hand it all over if i do not have a legal need to. i was just going to send everything i knew/had because that seemed to be the right thing...if i know more...tell them so they know where i am at on this. but i keep forgetting this is a court case....where you are supposed to be honest, yet play "hide and go seek" and "tag" like games and make them wonder and if they don't ask, don't tell, etc.

common sense tells me if i have more medical bills and medical records...give them to the defense...i have nothing to hide....but then they never do anything helpful for me so maybe i should keep them till they ask for them...but then if they do not know about them...they won't pay them...but then they are spending all their time trying to manufacture some reason they are not to blame/not negligent/not liable so they do not have to pay them...so if i give them the bills and records voluntarily, they will do everything to avoid having to pay anyway and then just use the records to find some little thing to twist and use against me? wow!!! this legal world is enough to make your head spin!

i feel like alice in wonderland...it gets curiouser and curiouser...
but your answers were of great help and got me thinking....