Irwindale Bankruptcy Attorney

Bankruptcy | Case Law | Discovery

DISCOVERY–GENERALLY

Connecticut General v. New Images, 482 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2007)

Court restates the five-part test for issuing a terminating sanction under Rule 37, and notes

that the court should also consider whether lesser sanctions might work, whether it tried them and

whether the court warned that terminating sanctions might be imposed. The test is not a

mechanical one.

In re Khachikyan, 335 B.R. 121 (9th Cir. BAP 2005)

Rule 9014(d), included in a 2002 amendment to the rule, is intended to require a trial when

there is a genuine factual dispute. Furthermore, “[a]s a strategic matter, where one wants

discovery in a contested matter, it is generally too late to wait to the day of the hearing on the

merits to request to conduct discovery in the future.”

Ortega v. O’Connor, 50 F.3d 778 (9th Cir. 1995)

Witnesses can be excluded for failure to exchange witness list.

Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 1994)

Before dismissing a complaint:

“Wanderer requires the district court to consider:

(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation,

(2) the court’s need to manage its dockets,

(3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions,

(4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits, and

(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.

Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990)

No abuse of discretion for joint and several imposition of sanctions.

Holmgren v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 976 F.2d 573 (9th Cir. 1992)

“Exhibits 92 and 93 meet the threshold requirements for qualification as work product:

both are (a) documents sought by Holmgren that were (b) prepared for trial (c) by a representative

of State Farm. They reflect the opinion of a State Farm adjuster on the range of potential liability.

See Reavis v. Metropolitan Property & Liability Ins. Co., 117 F.R.D. 160, 164 (S.D. Cal. 1987)

(recognizing opinion work product of adjusters handling claim).

“We agree with the several courts and commentators that have concluded that opinion

work product may be discovered and admitted when mental impressions are at issue in a case and

the need for the material is compelling. See, e.g., Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. Pharmacia, Inc., 130

F.R.D. 116, 122 (N.D.Cal.1990).”

Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652 (9th Cir. 1990)

Entry of default - standard for imposing under Rule 37.

In re (Subpoena served on the) California Public Utilities Commission, 892 F.2d 778 (9th Cir.

1989)

Work product, deliberational process, office reports.

159