California 2009-2010 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly

AB 578 — Civil procedure: discovery: objections.

Last action — From Senate committee without further action.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

The Civil Discovery Act permits a party to a civil action to obtain discovery, as specified, by inspecting documents, tangible things, and land or other property in the possession of any other party to the action. The act provides for procedures that must be followed when the responding party objects to part or all of an inspection demand. This bill would authorize the party making the demand to move for an order to require the responding party to produce a privilege log when that party objects to a demand on the basis of privilege or work product, as specified. If the court, in its discretion, determines that a privilege log is necessary in order to determine the validity of the claim, the court shall order the party claiming the privilege to prepare and serve a privilege log upon the terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the court. The bill would specify that the parties may voluntarily comply with these provisions or stipulate that all parties will comply with these provisions. The bill would require that the compliance be presumed to satisfy existing provisions related to objecting to a demand for inspection.

Bill Text

What changed in the latest version

1 added · 1 removed

1 line(s) added, 1 removed.

→
Previous
Latest
Bill Number Bill Keyword Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text Bill TextBill Information PDF2 Add To My Favorites | Version:
Bill Number Bill Keyword Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text Bill Text PDF2 Add To My Favorites | Version:
⬇ Download PDF
View plain text versions (2)

Action History

  1. From Senate committee without further action.

  2. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  3. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  4. Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 1368.)

  5. Read second time. To Consent Calendar.

  6. From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (May 5).

  7. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  8. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  9. From printer. May be heard in committee March 28.

  10. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Huber · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Huber

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

AB 578 HUBER Consent Calendar Second Day Regular Session

Passed 90 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 82002
Democratic 5000
Republican 3000
Total 90002
% of votes cast 98%0%0%2%
How each member voted (92)
Member Party Vote
Evans — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Carter — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Conway — Yea
Bill — Yea
Berryhill — Yea
Tom — Yea
Berryhill — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Charles — Yea
De — Yea
La — Yea
Torre — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
Fletcher — Yea
Gaines — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Yamada — Not Voting
Bonnie — Yea
V. — Yea
Manuel — Yea
Perez — Yea
John — Yea
A. — Yea
Perez — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Salas — Yea
Saldana — Yea
Audra — Yea
Garrick — Yea
Hagman — Yea
Hall — Yea
Harkey — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Bass — Yea
Hill — Yea
Huber — Yea
Jeffries — Yea
Krekorian — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Miller — Yea
Monning — Yea
Nava — Yea
Ruskin — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Torres — Yea
Torrico — Yea
Villines — Yea
Anderson — Yea
Beall — Yea
Blakeslee — Yea
Cook — Yea
Coto — Yea
Davis — Yea
DeVore — Yea
Adams — Yea
Block — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Knight — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Logue — Yea
Ma — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Price — Yea
Silva — Yea
Smyth — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Tran — Yea
Emmerson — Yea
Eng — Yea
Duvall — Not Voting
Furutani — Yea
Gilmore — Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass, to Consent Calendar.

Passed 10 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 9000
Republican 1000
Total 10000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (10)
Member Party Vote
Feuer — Yea
Knight — Yea
Krekorian — Yea
Monning — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Tran — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

civil-rights elections
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 578 do?
The Civil Discovery Act permits a party to a civil action to obtain discovery, as specified, by inspecting documents, tangible things, and land or other property in the possession of any other party to the action. The act provides for procedures that must be followed when the responding party objects to part or all of an inspection demand. This bill would authorize the party making the demand to move for an order to require the responding party to produce a privilege log when that party objects to a demand on the basis of privilege or work product, as specified. If the court, in its discretion, determines that a privilege log is necessary in order to determine the validity of the claim, the court shall order the party claiming the privilege to prepare and serve a privilege log upon the terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the court. The bill would specify that the parties may voluntarily comply with these provisions or stipulate that all parties will comply with these provisions. The bill would require that the compliance be presumed to satisfy existing provisions related to objecting to a demand for inspection.
Who sponsors AB 578?
AB 578 is sponsored by Huber.
What is the current status of AB 578?
This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 578?
Track AB 578 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 578

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 578

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →