Home

Reliable leadership in the civil litigation field. The California LitigatorSM was created for the litigation paralegal and legal support professional. There are solutions for almost every situation in civil litigation; it is just a matter of knowing where to find the answer or who to ask for help. This website is dedicated to providing you with an educational blog, legal resources, business tools, and paralegal tips in civil litigation to enhance your skills and direction for success.

Deadline Direct will help you calculate and track your deadlines in the most economical and efficient way possible. Help your firm save overhead. Here’s how … learn the rules, apply the rules, and use Deadline Direct to calculate and track the deadlines.

My Blog provides you with educational instruction and information related to civil litigation support.

The Paralegal Tips will provide quick, one to two sentence, paralegal tips. Topics will include all aspects of civil litigation, case management, client relations, ethics, time management, and self-improvement.

An added bonus is my FREE e-zine. Subscribe by entering your name and e-mail address into the sign up form to the right of your screen.
Blog Topics: ©Copyright 2012 All Rights Reserved

The California Litigator

By Barbara Haubrich-Hass, ACP/CAS

The first question relates to Supplemental Interrogatories.

The second question relates to vocational evaluations.

Question #1:  In an unlimited California civil case, how many times can a party serve Supplemental Interrogatories on the opposing parties?

Answer:  Two.  CCP 2030.070(b) states, "A party may propound a supplemental interrogatory twice before the initial setting of a trial date, and subject to the time limits on discovery proceedings..."

 

Question #2:  Can a defendant demand a vocational rehabilitation evaluation of a plaintiff through the use of CCP 2032.020, et seq.? 

Answer:  No.  A defendant is prohibited from demanding a plaintiff to undergo a vocational rehabilitation evaluation under CCP 2032.020, et seq.  See:  Browne v. Superior Court (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 610, 615; Reuter v. Superior Court (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 332,337-340.  

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

Thank you for visiting The California Litigator!

The California LitigatorSM articles have been featured in the California State Bar Association - The Bottom Line; Paralegal Gateway; The Estrin Report; The Organization for Legal Professionals; KNOW: The Magazine for Paralegals; Legaco Express for Paralegals; Litigation Support Careers; California Alliance of Paralegal Associations; Kern County Bar Association; Kern County Paralegal Association; Orange County Paralegal Association; Orange County Legal Secretaries Association; Women in e-Discovery; Wood & Randall - Connecting and Mentoring; Star Dot Star; Girl Friday Paralegal Blog; Dresher ProParalegal Newsletter, and many other legal publications throughout the United States.

Professional Affiliations:

Knox_Banner

acs-logo

Esquire_Deposition

DISCLAIMER: Barbara Haubrich-Hass, ACP/CAS, is not an attorney. Any information derived from The California Litigator, and any other statements contained herein, are for information purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice or a recommendation on a legal matter. The information from The California Litigator is not guaranteed to be correct, complete, or current. Barbara makes no warranty, express or implied, about the accuracy or reliability of the information provided within this website, or to any other website to which this website or articles may be linked.