The California legislature’s efforts to streamline the discovery process, promote transparency and fairness in civil proceedings, and reduce discovery abuse began in 2019, when California Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) § 2016.090 was amended to provide for initial disclosures, but only if the parties stipulated to such an exchange. Unsurprisingly, the rule change had little impact, as very few parties agreed to make the exchange. In 2023, legislation was passed to make the exchange potentially involuntary—now every party to the action must make initial disclosures so long as any other party demands them.
disclosure requirements
Amendment to Rule 7.1 Seeks to Resolve Federal Court Diversity Issues at the Outset of Cases But It May Not Achieve Its Goal
By Bryan A. Cruz on
A proposed amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, which had previously required information so judges could determine if they had a conflict of interest, would require a party in a diversity action to name and disclose the citizenship of every individual or entity whose citizenship is attributed to that party. Chief Justice Roberts submitted the proposed amendment on April 11, 2022. The amended Rule 7.1 takes effect December 1, 2022, unless Congress acts.
eDiscovery Includes Electronic Vehicle Data and Possible Sanctions for Spoliation
By Kristen Jones on
Discovery of relevant material extends far beyond documents created on personal computers. Discoverable data exists in many forms, including electronic data found in vehicles such as tractors used for tractor-trailers. This type of data is also subject to spoliation sanctions if not properly preserved. A recent case in the Northern District of Alabama, Barry v. Big M Transportation, Inc., addressed whether sanctions were warranted when electronic vehicle data was not preserved for a tractor-trailer that was involved in an accident.
Courts Split on Standing Issues in FCRA Suits After Spokeo
By Tiffany Woo on
On October 5, 2016, two district courts came to opposite conclusions on whether putative class action plaintiffs had standing to bring claims based on prospective employers’ failure to comply with Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) disclosure requirements.
Standing under Article III of the Constitution requires (1) an injury in fact (2) fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant and (3) likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins clarified that to confer standing, an injury in fact must be both particularized – affecting the plaintiff in a “personal and individual” way – and concrete – “real, not abstract.”