Field v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn.

California Court of Appeal Jun 9, 2022 No. B309111Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A party cannot evade discovery duties by providing evasive or ambiguous interrogatory responses and subsequently attempt to defeat summary judgment by introducing new, contradictory factual claims.

Issues

Whether a party may defeat summary judgment by asserting facts in opposition that contradict prior evasive discovery responses.
Whether a trial court may disregard a declaration that attempts to replace tactical ambiguity in discovery with tardy specificity.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A party cannot evade discovery duties and then try to defeat summary judgment by adding factual claims to create last-minute disputed issues.”

“A party opposing summary judgment may not move the target after the proponent has launched its arrow.”

“Trial courts encountering such an abuse are free to disregard a later declaration that hopes to supplant tactical or slothful ambiguity with tardy specificity.”

Filed 6/9/22 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

BETH FIELD, B309111

Plaintiff and Appellant, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LC107408 v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, etc., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Theresa M. Traber, Judge. Affirmed.

Tamer Law Corp. and Steven Michael Tamer for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Malcolm Cisneros, William G. Malcolm and Brian S. Thomley for Defendants and Respondents.

____________________

California’s civil discovery process aims to unearth the truth of the case, thus facilitating settlement on the basis of the mutually expected value of the suit. Evasive discovery responses frustrate this goal by concealing the truth. A party cannot evade discovery duties and then try to defeat summary judgment by adding factual claims to create last-minute disputed issues. That was the tactic here, and it fails. We publish to reiterate you harm your client’s interest when you craft or transmit evasive discovery responses. You likewise harm your own prospects if ever you hope for a fee award. (See Karton v. Ari Design & Construction Inc. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 734, 747 [attorney unprofessionalism justifies reducing fee awards].) Plaintiff Beth Field answered a key contention interrogatory with one word: “Unsure.” When later confronted with a defense summary judgment motion, however, Field developed belated clarity and finally specified the type of wrongdoing she was accusing the defendant of committing. We affirm because the trial court properly granted the motion. The essential facts of this home foreclosure case are as follows. Field executed a 2007 note for over a million dollars. She defaulted on her payments and applied for a loan modification in 2017. After a 2018 foreclosure sale, Field brought a wrongful foreclosure action against a bank and Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC. We group all defendants and lending and foreclosing entities together under the name “Rushmore.” Field’s suit proceeded to discovery. Rushmore propounded an interrogatory that Field answered with the word “Unsure,” as follows:

Field v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn.

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

BETH FIELD, B309111

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

WILEY, J.

STRATTON, P. J.

AI Brief