By Barbara Haubrich-Hass, ACP/CAS

While it is very broad, the right to discovery is not absolute, particularly where issues of privacy are involved.  The right of privacy in the California Constitution at Article I, § 1 “protects the individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious invasion.” [emphasis added] [Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal. 4^th 360, 370.]  Even highly relevant, non-privileged information may be shielded from discovery if its disclosure would impair a person's “inalienable right of privacy” provided by the California Constitution.  [San Diego Unified Port Dist. (1978) 20 C3d 844, 855–856; Pioneer, supra, at 370]  The right to privacy is also guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

By Barbara Haubrich-Hass, ACP/CAS

BACKGROUND:

In California, a wrongful death action is a statutorily created right that may only be asserted by any person who would be entitled to inherit from the decedent by way of intestate succession. Appellate decisions have interpreted California's wrongful death statute, California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60, as allowing the filing of only one action for wrongful death, in which action all such heirs must be joined as parties.  This "One Action Rule" applies even if the first heir to file an action knows of the existence of another heir.  If a case settles without an omitted heir being allowed to participate as to the settling defendant, the settlement is deemed binding on the omitted heir.  The omitted heir would, however, be allowed to bring an action against the settling plaintiff.

By Barbara Haubrich-Hass, ACP/CAS

This article will consist of bullet-points of information concerning the California Electronic Discovery Act.

INTRODUCTION:

• Assembly Bill No. 5 (otherwise known as the Electronic Discovery Act) was enacted in June, 2009;
• The purpose of the Act is to eliminate uncertainty and confusion regarding the discovery of electronically stored information “ESI” and minimize unnecessary and costly litigation that adversely impacts access to the courts;
• The Act amends and adds to the California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) to provide a series of procedures for a litigant to discover or object to discovery of ESI, building on already existing conventional discovery procedures;
• The Act incorporates into the CCP many of the same provisions regarding ESI found in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
• The Act is included in the following rules/statues:  CCP §§ 2031, 2016, 1985 et seq., and 1983.3-6; California Rules of Court Rules 3.724.3 - 3.728.

By Barbara Haubrich-Hass, ACP/CAS

I have often said that there is a rule for everything in California civil procedure.  This is very true, right down to the type of paper to use and the requirement to hole punch your pleadings.  I recommend even seasoned paralegals read these rules as a refresher to the court requirements.  I was surprised by a couple of the rules that I did not know.

Below are the requirements under California Rules of Court (CRC) relating to pleadings in the California state courts:

A Look at California Rules and the Impact on Attorneys and Paralegals

By Barbara Haubrich-Hass, ACP/CAS

As published in The Bottom Line of the Law Practice Management & Technology Section of the California State Bar Association, MCLE On-Line Ethics Credit

Since the birth of the paralegal profession in the 1960s, it has evolved into an essential component of every successful legal team.  The role of a paralegal is fundamentally shaped by the legal ethics that he or she must follow.  When considering the ethical use of a paralegal, one criteria is to determine whether the paralegal is working in the capacity as an “employee” or a “virtual” paralegal.  Once the attorney has determined the capacity of the paralegal, the attorney is able to consider the ethical boundaries for the utilization of that paralegal.