Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Ethics Blogs -> Legal Ethics Forum
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Ethics
: Legal Ethics ForumSupreme Court of California tells lawyers to limit their evidentiary objections in summary judgment practice
If an evidentiary objection has merit, but isn't critical to the motion at hand, should an ethical lawyer decline to raise the objection, out of a duty to the court, the opponent, and the system?
In the course of rendering its much-awaited decision in the Google age discrimination case (Reid v. Google), the Supreme Court of California wrestled with the fact that the trial court hadn't ruled on evidentiary objections. Trial courts are quite busy and in the course of summary judgment motions are flooded with countless objections to evidence. So the trial courts often finesse the objections. The Supreme Court declared that courts will be ruling on those objections, so the court also warned lawyers (emphasis added):
We recognize that it has become common practice for litigants to flood the trial courts with inconsequential written evidentiary objections, without focusing on those that are critical. Trial courts are often faced with ?innumerable objections commonly thrown up by the parties as part of the all-out artillery exchange that summary judgment has become.? (Mamou v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 686, 711-712.) Indeed, the Biljac procedure itself was designed to ease the extreme burden on trial courts when all ?too often? ?litigants file blunderbuss objections to virtually every item of evidence submitted.? [cites omitted] To counter that disturbing trend, we encourage parties to raise only meritorious objections to items of evidence that are legitimately in dispute and pertinent to the disposition of the summary judgment motion. In other words, litigants should focus on the objections that really count. Otherwise, they may face informal reprimands or formal sanctions for engaging in abusive practices. At the very least, at the summary judgment hearing, the parties ? with the trial court?s encouragement ? should specify the evidentiary objections they consider important, so that the court can focus its rulings on evidentiary matters that are critical in resolving the summary judgment motion.
Full post as published by Legal Ethics Forum on August 06, 2010 (boomark / email).
California Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision
Court Rejects Challenges to Proposition 8, but Finds Marriages Valid
Selection of State Supreme Court Judges
How State Court Judges are Selected
Is Barack Obama a Natural Born Citizen?
Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (Supreme Court): Does Obama meet the constitutional requirements to be President
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Career Choices
Descriptions of law enforcement occupations
Dumb California Laws
Stupid Laws in the Sunshine State
Kentucky lawyers
fraud case ends in mistrial.
Ebay Fined
French Court Sets Fine at $61 Million
Personal Injury
Appeals Court Upholds Congressional Legislation
California Labor Laws
alleged violations of California labor laws such as overtime pay, discrimination and harassment.
Tomato Salmonella
Sheetz Convenience Stores agrees to confidential out-of-court settlement with food poisoning victim.
National Association of Realtors
Settlement reached in broker listing antitrust lawsuit, pending court approval.

Reid v. Google: Evidentiary Objections in Summary Judgment Motions
Reid v. Google (Cal. Supreme Ct. - Aug. 5, 2010)
Improving Your Motions for Summary Judgment
New Trial Motions after Summary Judgment
An increase in the Courts summary docket








