Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RUVOLO, J.
I
Introduction
In deciding this appeal we deconstruct a civil discovery “urban legend” 1 — that a responding party has an affirmative duty to supplement responses to interrogatories if and when new information comes into that party’s possession, particularly if the party reserved the right to amend or supplement the earlier responses. Here a defendant sued in an asbestos personal injury case on a premises liability theory moved for summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff could not show he had been exposed to asbestos on the defendant’s premises in a manner for which the…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Soule v. General Motors Corp.California Supreme Court · 1994
- Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400California Supreme Court · 2001
- Privette v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- Union Bank v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Hooker v. Department of TransportationCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Saxena v. GoffneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- R & B Auto Center, Inc. v. Farmers Group, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006
- Ruiz v. Herman Weissker, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2005
- Browne v. Turner Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 2005
- Pratt v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.California Court of Appeal · 2008
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.