E-CLASS: PROBLEM THREE
Facts: Assume that the defense motion for summary judgment
is denied. Plaintiffs' counsel, Billy Doolittle, Esq., next focuses on defendant
Widgetcorp (WC). There are no other defendants in this lawsuit. Billy asks
WC the following interrogatory questions--which are properly answered by
the appropriate corporate agent.
"Q" = Plaintiffs' Interrogatories & "A" = Defendant
WC's Answers to Interrogatories.
* * * = deletion of other discovery Qs & As.
PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT WIDGETCORP
* * *
Q #13: Does WC have a copy of the hospital records for the plaintiffs
in this case, which confirm that the plaintiffs became ill as a result of
food poisoning?
Q #14: Was Doctor Green the plaintiff's treating physician, at all
times relevant to the facts of this case?
Q #15: Is Doctor Green a renowned internist, who has testified for
both the plaintiff and the defense in hundreds of depositions and trials
involving his specialty?
Q #16: Does WC have a copy of Doctor Green's deposition testimony
that the plaintiffs' symptoms were completely consistent with food poisoning
from contaminated food?
Q #17: Did WC know that the Edible Widgets were contaminated?
Q #18: Were the Edible Widgets in fact contaminated?
Q #19: Is it possible that WC is responsible for the contamination
harming the plaintiffs in this case?
* * *
DEFENDANT WIDETCORP'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES
* * *
A #13: Yes.
A #14: Yes.
A #15: Yes.
A #16: Yes.
A #17: After we read Doctor Green's hospital records, we became aware
of his diagnosis that the cause of their sickness was "food poisoning
resulting from the consumption of Edible Widgets eaten at 12:30 at Dan's
Deli."
A #18: We do not have any personal knowledge with which to answer
this question.
A #19: Yes--anything is possible.
* * *
Additional Facts: After reading WC's Answers to Interrogatories,
Attorney Doolittle files an amended complaint, seeking $75,000.00 in punitive
damages against Widgetcorp. Attorney Dolittle then sends defendant Widgetcorp
a request for production of documents--requesting copies of Widgetcorp's
financial records for the last twelve months. When defense counsel calls
Doolittle to protest this discovery request, Doolittle says that he will
not withdraw this request.
Assignment: You are now representing WC as its defense counsel. Draft
a motion in which you seek a protective order. Your objective is to bar
plaintiffs and their attorney from conducting discovery about the wealth
of your client.
Suggested resources: California Civil Code 3294 & 3295; CCP 425.10, etc. Adams v. Murakami, 54 Cal.3d 105 (1991). Rutter Group California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (available on Library Reserve); Witkin (online in Westlaw database and hardcopy in library stacks); and The Practitioner (column), Pursuing Punies: Comparing State, Federal Pleading & Proof Requirements, Los Angeles Daily Journal, p.7 (or, San Francisco Daily Journal, p.5,) January 28, 1997 (click on above title).
Due: Midnight, Saturday evening, December 6, 1997 (15th academic week).
Form of submission: e-mail only (with or without attachment).
Send to BOTH of my e-mail addresses, so that I can keep an
archive copy of your papers. You should also keep an electronic copy.
Index
Last rev: 11/11/97