2024 Rifkind v. superior court 22 cal.app.4th 1255

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

Author: rchk

August undefined, 2024

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 … 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

RIFKIND v. SUPERIOR COURT 22 Cal.App.4th 1255 - Casemine

http://www.advancedturbinesupport.com/4npwb13/pqe37g4s/article.php?tag=objection-to-demand-for-inspection-of-premises-california WebMay 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 … burdick\u0027s carpet cleaning - sellersville

Using deposition testimony to support your motion to compel

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 … WebAny version of that type of examination, asking a witness to explain the basis of his legal contentions, is conduct condemned in Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th … halloween css colors

Wasik v. Superior Court of San Bernardino Cnty. - casetext.com

Tentative ruling in deparment 56: KIMBERLY FAY, ET AL. VS

WebColonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1015; Rifkind v. Superior 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 questions that essentially ask a deponent to apply facts to law on the spot should instead be asked in ... WebRifkind plaintiff to own their truth. It will legal contention objections because a question incorporates the term “discrimination” or “retaliation.” (Rifkind v. Superior 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. halloween cssWebDec 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 … halloween ct

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

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

Riffing on Rifkind: Handling The Improper "Instruction Not To …

WebFeb 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 … WebFeb 23, 1994 · Citing Case. 22 Cal.App.4th 1255 (1994) 27 Cal. Rptr.2d 822. ROBERT GORE RIFKIND, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; …

Did you know?

WebThe superior court's orders embrace a great deal of material which Husband has produced or has agreed to produce. The financial reports of the law corporation through 1979 were produced prior to the hearing, and the 1980 reports were promised when ready. 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 …

WebCourt (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255 (27 Cal.Rptr.2d 822]. Rifkind is an absolute must-know case for any litigator who de fends depositions, that is, all of us. It is also, sometimes, a … 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 …

WebI often hear advice on making Rifkind legal contention objections because a question incorporates the term “discrimination” or “retaliation.” (Rifkind v. Superior 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. Incorporating the CACIs ... WebMar 23, 2024 · Superior Court, 22 Cal.App.4th 1255 (1994))“Do you contend”Identify (state) facts, witnesses, documents that support allegations Harassment – asked and …

WebYes, it is the same thing if you seek documents. endstream Did I think this was ok or not?

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 … burdick\\u0027s chocolate bostonWebRifkind 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 … burdick\\u0027s chocolate nhWebPisaro (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 ... burdick\u0027s chocolate walpole nhWebJan 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). halloween crystal ball propWebJul 28, 2024 · In Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255 , the deponent was instructed not to answer various “contention” questions. In response, the deposing party brought a motion to compel, which the court … burdick\u0027s cleaningWebSep 5, 2013 · Rifkind v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1257. The California courts have ruled that the scope of discovery in California civil litigation is very broad. Any doubts are applied liberally in favor of discovery. 2. burdick\u0027s chocolate shop walpole nhWebSuperior 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 client’s) role to determine which facts support the client’s contentions, even where, as in Rifkind, the client happens to be an attorney. burdick\\u0027s greenhouse