Pate v. Channel Lumber Co

In Pate v. Channel Lumber Co. (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1447, a case cited by both parties in this appeal, plaintiffs had made several written pretrial requests for production of documents and had received written assurances from the defense that all relevant documents had been produced. Plaintiffs had acceded to a request by the defense to reopen discovery in exchange for further assurances. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs also had tendered to the defense all 719 documents they had copied from defendant's files and again asked whether any other documents were in existence, and again received assurances from the defense that there were no other documents to be discovered. (Ibid.) In its defense at trial, the defendant then attempted to introduce documents that had not been produced in discovery. (Ibid.) The appellate court determined that the evidence sanction was proper even though plaintiffs had not moved to compel further responses to their requests for production since they had received repeated assurances from defendant that all documents had been produced. ( Id. at p. 1456.)