Baron v. Super. CT. CA4/2

California Court of Appeal Feb 13, 2014 No. E060385Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court granted the petition in part, directing the trial court to vacate its evidence exclusion order and conduct a new hearing to determine whether the discovery breach was willful and whether the resulting prejudice warrants such a sanction.

Issues

Whether an evidence exclusion sanction for a discovery breach is appropriate absent findings of bad faith or prejudice.
Whether the trial court must consider the prejudice to both parties and the potential for less severe remedies before excluding evidence.

Disposition. Granted in part and denied in part; remanded with directions.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In general, the use of an evidence exclusion sanction for a discovery breach is only appropriate where the breach was willful and intended to deceive.”

“The trial court here made no findings as to either bad faith or prejudice, and the record does not compel such findings.”

Filed 2/13/14 Baron v. Super. CT. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

ROOKE BARON,

Petitioner, E060385

v. (Super.Ct.No. CIVDS1014455)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,

Respondent;

SCAF WATER POLO, et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for peremptory writ of mandate. Brian S.

McCarville, Judge. Petitioner is granted in part and denied in part with directions.

Brady, Vorwerck, Ryder & Caspino, Robert B. Ryder, Ravi Sudan and Victor A.

Raphael for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Hewitt & Truskowski, Stephen L. Hewitt and Henry C. Truszkowski for Real

Parties in Interest.

In this matter we have reviewed the petition and the opposition filed by real parties

in interest. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of

settled principles of law, and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is

Baron v. Super. CT. CA4/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

ROOKE BARON,

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MILLER J.

AI Brief