Arbitrators / Mediators

Judge Thomas P. Nugent [Ret.]

Defense oriented and should be avoided by plaintiffs. As discovery referee he made objections for the defendant, sustained his objection and denied the motion on the basis of his own objection. He asserted that he had the right to object "sua sponte" on behalf of a defendant who did not raise the objection. 

A party whose response fails to set forth a particular ground for objection waives its right to raise that objection later.
Stadish v. Sup.Ct. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1141.

Objections must be raised by a party, and there is no authority for untimely objections raised months later by a referee on behalf of a party, when ruling on a motion to compel.

Judge Nugent also asserted objections not found in the Code, objecting that inspection demands were not “full and complete in and of themselves”, citing Code of Civil Procedure §2030.060 (d) which applies only to interrogatories. The “full and complete” requirement for interrogatories does not apply to inspection demands at all.

He reversed prior rulings, rather than enforce prior orders. When presented with the prior ruling, rather than order the defendant comply, he said his prior ruling was “inadvertent”, wasting time, effort, and expense for both parties. When problems arose, such as his failure to set a date for defendant's compliance, Judge Nugent was unwilling to correct his mistakes even on an informal basis.