 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Adams v. Torbarina2/13/2003
trial court erroneously denied her request for discovery of arbitrator bias pursuant to Evidence Code section 703.5.
A trial court hearing a petition to vacate an arbitration award cannot consider an arbitrator's evidence explaining the reasons for the decision or the merits of the controversy. Nonetheless in such a proceeding pursuant to Evidence Code section 703.5 the trial court has the power to hear evidence from the arbitrator about the arbitrator's qualifications to act, and specifically the arbitrator's bias or lack of bias. (Cobler v. Stanley, Barber, Southard, Brown & Associates (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 518, 529.)
A petition to vacate an award must be filed within 100 days after the date of service of a signed copy of the award on the petitioner. (§ 1288.) Although it is unclear when the award was served on Adams, the statute provided ample time for the discovery Adams sought, written questions and answers by Justice Eagleson pursuant to section 2028. Adams's motion provided no showing of diligence in seeking to obtain discovery, or why Adams waited until June 1, 2000, to file the motion when the petition was to be heard on June 5, 2000. Although the trial court had discretion to grant a continuance and to grant leave to take discovery, Adams did not make a showing of diligence in seeking discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, of reasons why the discovery motion was not heard earlier, or of the likelihood that discovery would produce cognizable evidence on the issue authorized by Cobler. As the party seeking discovery, Adams did not meet her burden of producing evidence from which the trial court could determine that the matter was either itself admissible or appeared reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223.)
Management of discovery lies within the trial court's sound discretion, and this court reviews discovery rulings by the abuse of discretion standard. (Johnson v. Superior Court (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1061; see also § 2024, subd. (e).) We find no abuse of discretion.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to defendant Torbarina.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
We concur:
KLEIN, P.J.
ALDRICH, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|