Personal Injury Lawyer Blog
It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this elder abuse case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury lawsuit and its proceedings.)
THE SEPARATE STATEMENT’S FAILURES TO COMPLY WITH RULE 3.1350 SHOULD LEAD THE COURT TO DENY THE MOTION
The separate statement contains no specific reference to evidence, making the purported facts impossible to affirm or dispute.
Rule 3.1350, California Rules of Court, provides:
(d) The Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in support of a motion must separately identify each cause of action, claim, issue of duty, or affirmative defense, and each supporting material fact claimed to be without dispute with respect to the cause of action, claim, issue of duty, or affirmative defense. In a two-column format, the statement must state in numerical sequence the undisputed material facts in the first column followed by the evidence that establishes those undisputed facts in that same column. Citation to the evidence in support of each material fact must include reference to the exhibit, title, page, and line numbers.
Instead of setting forth a specific reference to portions of the interrogatories and answers as evidence in support of the claimed undisputed fact, movants were content to generally refer to the discovery responses in general, and to summarize and characterize the evidence. The tactic seems to be to claim the absence of facts by offering movants’ counsel’s summary of discovery.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
Plaintiff does not believe this tactic is proper. By failing to list a responses defendants are shifting the burden to the court and counsel to review discovery responses to determine whether any response contains facts relating to the issue. This task is not only procedurally improper, it is unduly burdensome for the court and counsel.
Additionally, the separate statement is troublesome because counsel, under the guise of summarizing rote responses to discovery, has mis-characterized the actual responses. When relevant, there can be no substitute for using a verbatim recitation of the questions and answers. To do otherwise requires the court and counsel to examine each interrogatory and response to see whether, indeed, the representations of counsel are correct. (They are not – as stated there is no mention in the moving papers of Plaintiffs’ reference to additional facts contained in medical records as a proper exercise of their right under C.C.P. §2030.230) Again, counsel’s summary of discovery is not evidence. (See Part 7 of 8.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.