NOTE: 2000 AMENDMENTS TO CCP §638 et. seq. AND NEW RULES OF COURT MAY MODIFY OR INVALIDATE PRIOR DECISIONS AFFECTING REFEREES CITED HEREIN

STATUTES, RULES & CASES

Summary statute and rule effective 2001

TYPES OF REFERENCES

GENERAL [CCP §638]
SPECIAL [CCP §639]

PROPRIETY OF REFERENCE / JUDICIAL RESPONSIBILITY & REVIEW

Justification for reference over objection
Matters trial court should decide
Court cannot abdicate judicial responsibility
Court should avoid appearance of delegating judicial functions to referees and should not routinely refer discovery matters outside of court
Exception in complex litigation requiring case management & monitoring
Court should carefully differentiate types of discovery motions that are appropriate for reference

SELECTION OF REFEREE [CCP §640]
ORDER APPOINTING REFEREE [CCP §639(d)]
FEES [CCP §639(d)(5)(6); §645.1]
ALLOCATION OF FEES [CCP §643(c); §645.1]
REFEREE REPORT, FINDINGS & DECISION [CCP §643]
COURT REVIEW [CCP §644]

Consensual references [CCP §638]
Nonconsensual references [CCP §639]

FORM OF ORDER APPOINTING REFEREE [CCP 639(d) ]

REQUIRED PROVISIONS IN ORDER
PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW AND INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION BY COURT

REFEREE LIST

SUMMARY OF
REFEREE STATUTE AND RULES

NOTE: 2000 AMENDMENTS TO CCP §638 et. seq. AND NEW CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULES 244.1 & 244.2, EFFECTIVE 7/1/01, MAY MODIFY OR INVALIDATE PRIOR DECISIONS AFFECTING REFEREES CITED HEREIN. However, except as provisions may expressly change prior procedures, there is no indication of intent to overrule prior decisions on substantive law. The legislation was a reaction to criticisms of abuses that had already been addressed by appellate courts and appears to simply enact most of the restrictions imposed by case law. Additions or changes include the right of counsel to agree upon or nominate referees and the prohibition on courts requiring counsel to be responsibile for referee fees, though imposing such fees on counsel as a discovery sanction is not prohibited.

C.C.P. 638 & CRC 244.1 references by agreement & consent
CCP 639 & CRC RULE 244.2 references by court without consent of parties
TEMPORARY JUDGES: CRC 244: written stipulation of parties; approval of PJ; oath; and filing thereof

contents
top

Consensual references
Non-consensual references
Selection of Referee
Fees
Statement of Decision

Consensual Reference by Agreement: CCP §638, CRC Rule 244.1]

Copy of Order re appointment or compensation to Presiding Judge [638(c) CRC Rule 244.1(h)]
Copy of Referee Report to Presiding Judge [CRC Rule 244.1(h)]
Contents of Order [CRC244.1(a)]

Referee's name, address & telephone number
State Bar number if member; former Calif. Judicial officer must be a member
Referee's signature re consent to serve
Agreement of referee to comply with Canon 6, Judicial Ethics
Scope of reference: all issues or specified issues

Peremptory challenges, timeliness CCP 639(b): 5 days prior to hearing, 10 days after appointment
Disclosure by Referee [CRC241.1(c)]

Required by Canon 6, (D)(2)(f) and (g)
Prior relationship with parties etc.

Fee information [638(c) ]
Fee agreed by the parties or court "may" order [CCP §645.1(a)]
Cannot appoint mediator pursuant to 638 [CRC Rule 244.1(b)

summary

Non-consensual Reference [CCP §639, CRC Rule 244.2]

Discovery disputes CCP §639(a)(5)
Copy of Report and Orders re appointment or compensation to Presiding Judge [CCP §639(e); CRC Rule 244.2(i)]
Written motion or court's own motion

Cannot appoint mediator pursuant to 639
No routine appointments:
"only when exceptional circumstances of the particular case require it"
Certification by referee re compliance with Canon 6 prerequisite to appointment

Peremptory challenges, timeliness CCP 639(b): 5 days prior to hearing, 10 days after appointment
Disclosure by Referee [CRC 244.2(e)]

Required by Canon 6
Prior relationships with parties, counsel

Contents of Order: CCP 639(d); CRC Rule 244.2(c):

Reasons & justification for appointment (d)(2)

"exceptional circumstances requiring the reference"
"must be specific to …the particular case"

Subject of reference [can be "all discovery purposes" §639(c) & (d)(3); CRC 244.2(h)]
Referee name, address, & telephone; CCP 639(d)(4)
Referee state bar number [CRC Rule 244.2(c)]
Maximum hourly rate and number of hours
Finding re economic inability of party not established or voluntary payment by other party [statute expressly prohibits consideration of attorney ability to pay][244.2(c)]
Attach referee certification re compliance with rules and Canon 6 [CRC 244.2(c)]

summary

Selection of Referee [CCP §640]

Must appoint person agreed upon by parties
Absent agreement, parties submit 3 names from which court selects
If no nominee, court appoints
Former California judicial officer must be member of state bar [CRC 244.2(d)]

Fees [CCP §645.1]

Court "may order the parties to pay"
See Enforcement of Judgment CCP §680.230: "Judgment means…order."
"In any manner…including an apportionment …among the parties."
Counsel not liable
Forward copy of order to Presiding Judge [CRC 244.2(i)]

top

contents

Statement of Decision by Referee within 20 days of hearing [CCP§643]

CCP §638 Consensual Reference report as agreed and approved by court

CCP §639 Non-consensual Reference

Recommendation on merits which is advisory [CCP §644(b)]
Total hours and total fees
Recommended allocation of fees
Objections within 10 days
Copy must be forward to Presiding Judge [CRC 244.2(i)]

summary of statute & rules
TOP

CASES

Aetna Life Ins.Co.v. Superior Court (1986), 182 Cal.App.3d 431
Andrews v. Superior Court (2000), 82 Cal.App.4th 779
Baker-Hoey v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 111 Cal. App. 4th 592;3 Cal. Rptr. 3d 593
Bird v. Superior Court (1980), 112 Cal App3rd 595 [stat.amended]
Baumohl v. FHP, Inc. (1998), 64 Cal.App.4th 1506
DeBlase v. Superior Court (1996), 41 Cal.App.4th 1279
Hood v. Superior Court (1999), 72 Cal.App.4th 446
Jovine v. FHP, Inc.(1998), 64 Cal.App.4th 1506
Kajima Engineering & Construction v. Pacific Bell (2002), Cal.App.4th 2002 DJDAR 13647
Korea Data Systems Co. v. Superior Court (1997)
Lu v. Superior Court(1997), 55 Cal.App.4th 1264
Marathon National Bank v. Superior Court (1993), 19 Cal.App.4th 1256 [rehrg den]
Martino v. Denevi(1986), 182 Cal.Ap.3d 553
McDonald v. Superior Court(1994), 22 Cal.App.4th 364
McMillan v. Superior Court(1996), 50 Cal.App.4th 246 [depublished]
People v. Superior Court(Laff)(1998), 64 Cal.App4th 414 [6/1/98][review granted]
Rockwell Int. Corp. v. Superior Court (1994), 26 Cal. App. 4th 1255
Sauer v. Superior Court(1987), 195 Cal.App.3d 213
Solorzano v. Superior Court (1993), 18 Cal.App. 4th 603
Taggares v. Superior Court(1998), 62 Cal.App.4th 94
Whoop Inc. v. Dyno Productions Inc.(1998), 64Cal.App. 4th 32 [depublished]

contents TOP cases

CASE OUTLINE

NOTE: 2000 AMENDMENTS TO CCP §638 et. seq. AND NEW RULES OF COURT MAY MODIFY OR INVALIDATE PRIOR DECISIONS AFFECTING REFEREES CITED HEREIN


TYPES OF REFERENCES

GENERAL

C.C.P. §638 provides for reference by agreement of the parties for the referee to hear and determine issues
C.C.P. §644(a) clarifies that "In the case of a consensual general reference pursuant to Section 638, the decision of the referee...must stand as the decision of the court...." C.C.P. §644(b) reiterates existing case law that in nonconsensual refereences the referee decision is only advisory and requires independent review. See below re court review.

Binding; written consent required; silence and participation w/o obj. not waiver

Baumohl v. FHP, Inc. (1998), 64 Cal.App.4th 1506,
Aetna Life Ins.Co.v. Superior Court (1986), 182 Cal.App.3d 431
Sauer v. Superior Court(1987), 195 Cal.App.3d 213
Jovine v. FHP, Inc.(1998), 64 Cal.App.4th 1506

Explicit statutory authority required to assign to referee

Baumohl v. FHP, Inc. (1998), 64 Cal.App.4th 1506
Aetna Life Ins.Co.v. Superior Court (1986), 182 Cal.App.3d 431 at p.435
Marriage of Gallis 149 Cal.App.3d 147, 150
Calif. Constitution art.Vl, sec.22 limits references to subordinate judicial duties

SPECIAL

CCP §643(c) clarifies that in a CCP§639 reference the court is not bound by the referee report
CCP §644(b) reiterates existing case law that in nonconsensual refereences the referee decision is only advisory and requires independent review. See below re court review.

Independent determination by trial court required

Baumohl v. FHP, Inc. (1998), 64 Cal.App.4th 1506 [tr ct re'vd for attempting to refer summary judgment to retired judge w/o consent of parties]
Aetna Life Ins.Co.v. Superior Court (1986), 182 Cal.App.3d 431 at p. 436 [Tr.Ct. rev'd. after attempting to refer summary judgment and adopt findings & conclusions without hearing ]
Sauer v. Superior Court(1987), 195 Cal.App.3d 213
People v. Superior Court (Laff) (1998)
Bird v. Superior Court (1980), 112 Cal App3rd 595 [stat.amended]

Advisory; may be ordered without consent of the parties

Aetna Life Ins.Co.v. Superior Court (1986), 182 Cal.App.3d 431

contents TOP cases

PROPRIETY OF REFERENCE /

JUDICIAL RESPONSIBILITY & REVIEW

Justification for reference over objection

CCP §639 (d)(2) Order must "include... the exceptional circumstances requiring the reference which must be specific to the circumstances of the particular case. " However, the statute does not suggest what might be such exceptional circumstances prior case law should govern this issue with the exception of the Lu case..

Complex, time consuming issues

DeBlase v. Superior Court (1996), 41 Cal.App.4th 1279 [Reference over objection of financial hardship rev'd; no complex, time consuming matters

Taggares v. Superior Court(1998), 62 Cal.App.4th 94[Sua sponte reference of all routine discovery and forcing one side to pay solely on the basis of financial status reversed]

Lu v. Superior Court(1997)[Referee may be appointed in complex litigation before an actual dispute. In questionable dictum, the court assumed "complex cases invariably involve complex discovery disputes" and suggested routine references as part of case management in complex litigation. The dictum in contrary to the weight of authority condemning routine references as an abdication of judicial responsibility and is contrary to the new statutory language.]

Hood v. Superior Court (1999), 72 Cal.App.4th 446 [fn.4 re appropriate for complex cases involving acrimony or requiring extraordinary expenditure of judicial time]

Privilege issues relating to numerous documents

DeBlase v. Superior Court (1996), 41 Cal.App.4th 1279
Taggares v. Superior Court(1998), 62 Cal.App.4th 94
People v. Superior Court(Laff)(1998)

Depositions requiring presence of neutral party

DeBlase v. Superior Court (1996), 41 Cal.App.4th 1279
Taggares v. Superior Court(1998), 62 Cal.App.4th 94

On going discovery disputes

DeBlase v. Superior Court
Taggares v. Superior Court(1998), 62 Cal.App.4th 94

contents TOP cases

Matters trial court should decide

Complex, unsettled legal issues or matters of first impression
Matters affecting 3rd parties

Taggares v. Superior Court(1998), 62 Cal.App.4th 94

Court cannot abdicate judicial responsibility
Court should avoid appearance of delegating judicial functions to referees and should not routinely refer discovery matters outside of court

Hood v. Superior Court (1999), 72 Cal.App.4th 446 [writ issued to set aside sua sponte reference in routine discovery dispute; ct app suggests tr ct should make finding of extraordinary circumstances and cannot parrot statute]

Baumohl v. FHP, Inc. (1998), 64 Cal.App.4th 1506 ["...the responsibility to decide cannot be delegated irrespective of the burdens imposed by the court's pending caseload." Ct Ap seems to disapprove of routine use of form order in LA for referring discovery matters to private judges paid by the parties.]

Taggares v. Superior Court(1998), 62 Cal.App.4th 94 [blanket ref of routine disc disfavored; refer when necessary not merely convenient]

Marathon National Bank v. Superior Court (1993), 19 Cal.App.4th 1256 [rehrg den] [meaningful review and independent determination by tr.ct. required]

Aetna Life Ins.Co.v. Superior Court (1986) at p. 437

Solorzano v. Superior Court (1993) at p. 615

Rockwell Int. at p.1269 [record must show considered and careful review of report , transcript & objections thereto]

DeBlase v. Superior Court (1996), 41 Cal.App.4th 1279 at p.1284

Korea Data Systems Co.Ltd. v. Superior Court (1997) [Ct. does not reach issues but cites Marathon & Rockwell cases regarding abdication by rubber stamping reference]

McMillan v. Superior Court (1996), 50 Cal.App.4th 246 (depublished) [ prior to 639 reference, when party raises financial issues, suggests court should determine issues such as financial condition & ability to pay of objecting party, allocation of fees, hourly amount or amount for task etc., scope and extent of references]

contents top cases

Possible exception in complex litigation requiring case management & monitoring

Lu v. Superior Court(1997)[The issue and holding was that a referee may be appointed in complex litigation before an actual dispute. In questionable dictum, the court assumed "complex cases invariably involve complex discovery disputes" and suggested routine references as part of case management in complex litigation. The dictum in contrary to the weight of authority condemning routine references as an abdication of judicial responsibility and is contrary to the new statutory language.]

Hood v. Superior Court (1999), 72 Cal.App.4th 446 [suggests some history or additional reason is required to justify references even in "complex" cases]

Court should carefully differentiate types of discovery motions that are appropriate for reference

Taggares v. Superior Court(1998), 62 Cal.App.4th 94
Solorzano v. Superior Court (1993) at p. 615

SELECTION OF REFEREE [CCP 640]

Agreement of parties
Parties submit up to 3 nominees & court selects from list
Court selects if no nominees or agreement

ORDER APPOINTING REFEREE [CCP §639(d)]
See below re form of order

Written order
"Indicate" whether referee appointed for all discovery purposes [CCP§639(c)]
Exceptional circumstances requiring the reference which must be specific to the circumstances of the particular case CCP§639(d)(2)
CCP §639(d)(3)-(5)
Subject matter of reference
Referee's name, business address & telephone number
Maximum hourly rate
Maximum number of hours if requested by any party

FINDINGS

No party has established economic inability to pay a pro rata share of the referee fee
OR
If so, another party has voluntarily agreed to pay the additional share

[Note: Ability of counsel to pay cannot be considered]

Copy of order must be forwarded to Presiding Judge

Oath not required

Kajima Engineering & Construction v. Pacific Bell (2002), Cal.App.4th 2002 DJDAR 13647 [Assigned judge refered matter to retired judge for 4 day court trial; retired judge filed Statement of Decision; assigned judge entered judgement on the statement of decision; sole issue on appeal was whether referee must take oath of Temporary Judge; Held: no oath required on general reference]

FEES[CCP 645.1]

CCP§639(d) Order appointing referee "shall include the... maximum hourly rate the referee may charge and, at the request of any party, the maximum number of hours....".
CCP §643 referee report must include total fees and recommended allocation
CCP §645.1(b) apportionment of fees by court

Attorney not responsible

CCP §645.1(b) amendment expressly protects counsel from any obligation to pay fees as part of "parties" obligation: "...the term 'parties' does not include parties' counsel." However, statute does not address requiring attorney to pay referee fees as a discovery sanction as suggested in the Andrews case below.
CCP §639(d)(6)(B) attorney ability to pay cannot be considered on issue of party's ability to pay

Andrews v. Superior Court (7/28/00) 82 Cal.App.4th 779 [Tr.Ct rev'd for ordering attorney to pay referee fees; court recognizes that attorney might be ordered to pay such fees as a monetary sanction if appropriate under CCP 2023 and 2031]

Taggares v. Superior Court(1998), 62 Cal.App.4th 94 [court questions whether attorney advancing costs justifies requiring attorney to pay for referee]

McMillan v. Superior Court(1996), 50 Cal.App.4th 246[depublished][absent agreement CCP645.1 only allows court to order parties to pay]

Attorney may be required to pay referee fees as monetary sanction

Andrews v. Superior Court (7/28/00), 82 Cal.App.4th 779 [The court rejected an order requiring an attorney to pay referee fees based on the court's inherent power or CCP128.5 but noted: "It may well be that, in a proper case, the burden of such fees could be placed on an erring attorney under the discovery statute."]

Public agency required to pay

People v. Superior Court(Laff)(1998), 64 Cal.App4th 414 [6/1/98][review granted] [People required to pay half referee fee for in camera inspection for privilege for documents subject to search warrant in criminal investigation per CCP§§ 639,645.1]

Referee fee not recoverable cost as a matter of right

Baker-Hoey v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 111 Cal. App. 4th 592;3 Cal. Rptr. 3d 593; [Class certification denied in action for medical damages of 50-100,000 persons. Defendant sought recovery of costs ($15-31,000 each) against 8 plaintiffs. after summary judgment based on Statute of Limitations. Discovery referee fees not recoverable as a matter or right and no abuse of discretion in denial. Tr Ct apportionment of referee fees from original order followed and no costs recoverable. Aff'd no abuse of discretion]

contents top cases

ALLOCATION OF FEES [CCP §645.1]

CCP §643(c) Referee report must include ""the referee's recommended allocation of payment" of the referee's fees.
CCP §645.1(b) apportionment of fees by court
The statutory amendments in Y2K may have modified the case law requiring apportionment at the time of initial appointmnet.


One side can be ordered to pay all fees

Taggares v. Superior Court(1998), 62 Cal.App.4th 94[not if based solely on financial status]

Marathon National Bank v. Superior Court (1993), 19 Cal.App.4th 1256 [rehrg den] p.12591261-2 ["But for Marathon's hardball discovery tactics, these expenses would never have been incurred."]

???Court cannot defer allocation of fee issue until after referee's work is completed but must make a provisional allocation subject to later adjustment. [The statutory amendments in Y2K may have modified the case law requiring apportionment at the time of initial appointmnet.]

Taggares v. Superior Court(1998), 62 Cal.App.4th 94
DeBlase v. Superior Court (1996), 41 Cal.App.4th 1279 [Rev'd for not making determination; see re factors to consider]
McDonald v. Superior Court at p.370[fee allocation can't be referred to ref.]
Marathon National Bank v. Superior Court (1993), 19 Cal.App.4th 1256 [rehrg den], p.1261
McMillan v. Superior Court (1996), 50 Cal.App.4th 246

Hood v. Superior Court (1999), 72 Cal.App.4th 446 [tr ct cannot abdicate responsibility of determining financial hardship or allocation of fees]

contents top cases

Court must consider alternatives to paid referee

Meet & confer rules etc to resolve matters inexpensively
Pro bono referee
Retired judge sitting by assignment
Retention by trial court
Reference to Muni Ct. Judge under coordination plan
Ref. within court: staff atty, law clerk, bailiff, commissioner

Taggares v. Superior Court(1998), 62 Cal.App.4th 94
Solorzano v. Superior Court (1993),
DeBlase v. Superior Court (1996), 41 Cal.App.4th 1279

Court must consider financial consequences

CCP 639(d)(6) requires express findings in order appointing referee

No party has established inability to pay pro rata share
OR
If so, another party has agreed voluntarily that additional share

Taggares v. Superior Court(1998), 62 Cal.App.4th 94)
Solorzano v. Superior Court (1993) at p.615 [court could not require in forma pauperis plaintiff to pay private referee ]
DeBlase v. Superior Court (1996), 41 Cal.App.4th 1279 [whenever issue of economic hardship is raised, trial court must consider issue of fair & reasonable apportionment of fees before reference]
McDonald v. Superior Court [raised by renewal of mot.compel after referral but before referee commenced proceedings]
McMillan v. Superior Court (1996), 50 Cal.App.4th 246

Hood v. Superior Court (1999), 72 Cal.App.4th 446 [tr ct cannot abdicate responsibility to referee to decide and make allocations; must consider declarations of party and representations of counsel unless there is reason not to do so]

contents top cases

Court may only consider the ability of the party to pay fees and may not consider the ability of counsel to pay

CCP§639(d)(6)(B)

Court may not consider extent to which expenses are being advanced by counsel in determining ability of party to pay

Taggares v. Superior Court(1998), 62 Cal.App.4th 94 [language in DeBlase questioned]
DeBlase v. Superior Court (1996), 41 Cal.App.4th 1279 at p.1284

Court need not make findings or even disclose reasons for allocation of fees and is presumed to have considered all relevant factors

DeBlase v. Superior Court (1996), 41 Cal.App.4th 1279 at p. 1286

REFEREE REPORT, FINDINGS & DECISION [CCP §643]

CCP §638 report as agreed by the parties and approved by the court

Statement of decision must stand as findings of court; actual judgment is entered by court

Kajima Engineering & Construction v. Pacific Bell (2002), Cal.App.4th 2002 DJDAR 13647
Jovine v. FHP Inc. (1998), 64 Cal.App.4th 1506

CCP §639 report

Written report and statement of decision filed with court within 20 days of submission
Serve all parties
Recommendation on the merits of any disputed issue
Total hours spent and total fees charged
Referee's recommended allocation of payment of fees

Objections served and filed within 10 days
Responses to objections within 10 days
Report is advisory [CCP §644(b)]



Waiver of objections

Martino v. Denevi(1986)[ objections in ref rpt., written obj filed, or motion]

contents top cases

COURT REVIEW CCP §645

Consensual references CCP §638
CCP §644(a) clarifies that "In the case of a consensual general reference pursuant to Section 638, the decision of the referee...must stand as the decision of the court...."

Kajima Engineering & Construction v. Pacific Bell (2002), Cal.App.4th 2002 DJDAR 13647 [Assigned judge refered matter to retired judge for 4 day court trial; retired judge filed Statement of Decision; assigned judge entered judgement on the statement of decision; sole issue on appeal was whether referee must take oath of Temporary Judge; Held: no oath required on general reference]
Marathon National Bank v. Superior Court (1993), 19 Cal.App.4th 1256 [rehrg den]
Aetna Life Ins.Co.v. Superior Court (1986
Whoop Inc. v. Dyno Productions Inc.(1998), [depublished] [consensual reference for determination enforced as if agreement to arbitration; suggests review consensual references like arbitration decision]
Jovine v. FHP, Inc.(1998), 64 Cal.App.4th 1506

contents top cases

Nonconsensual references CCP §639
CCP §644(b) reiterates existing case law that in nonconsensual references the referee decision is only advisory and requires independent review.

Baumohl v. FHP, Inc. (1998), 64 Cal.App.4th 1506 [Tr ct re'vd for improper general reference w/o consent; in discussion, court questioned the legitimacy of a recitation of the trial courts de nova review]
Marathon National Bank v. Superior Court (1993), 19 Cal.App.4th 1256 [rehrg den] p.1260 fn3,1261
Bird v. Superior Court(1980), 112 CA3d 595 [order cannot confer power]
McMillan v. Superior Court (1996), 50 Cal.App.4th 246
People v. Superior Court(Laff)(1998)
Jovine v. FHP, Inc.(1998), 64 Cal.App.4th 1506

Independent determination by trial court required
Consider referee findings & objections thereto
Whatever manner the trial court deems appropriate
Hearing not required

Marathon National Bank v. Superior Court (1993), 19 Cal.App.4th 1256 [rehrg den] [Order provided for one in ct discretion and party requested it but none was held; aff'd; §639(e) ref; meaningful review by tr.ct. req. but not rehearing; order shows court carefully reviewed report, transcript etc.]

Aetna Life Ins.Co.v. Superior Court (1986at p. 436[Independent determination by trial court required;Tr.Ct.rev'd. after attempting to refer summary judgment and adopt findings & conclusions without hearing ]

contents top cases

San Francisco Discovery California Discovery

FORMAT FOR ORDER APPOINTING REFEREE
A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the office of the Presiding Judge.

Pursuant to CCP §639(a)(5) _____________is appointed to serve as discovery referee. The Court has accepted nominations from the parties and selected the referee from those nominations or the parties have agreed to the referee or no nominees were submitted and the court appointed the referee.

The referee is being appointed to hear and determine and report to the court on the following discovery matters:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________.

A 170.6 challenge shall be made pursuant to CCP 639(b).

The exceptional circumstances requiring the reference, which ar specific to this particular case are the following ______________________________________________________________________________________.

Complex, time consuming issues
Privilege issues relating to numerous documents
Depositions requiring presence of neutral party
On going discovery disputes
Inordinate consumption of time on routine discovery disputes involving the parties
Need to control discovery abuses
Need to assure and provide cost effective discovery
Part of case management program

The name, business address and telephone number of the referee are as follows:

________________________________________
_________________________________________
___________________________________________

The maximum hourly rate of the referee is set at $_________________
No party has requested that the maximum number of hours be set. OR The maximum number of hours is set at _______.
No party has established an economic inability to pay its pro rata share of the referee fees OR A party has established an inability to pay and another party has agreed voluntarily to pay such fees.

The referee shall report its statement of decision in writing to the court within 20 days after any hearing and the matter has been submitted. Such report shall comply with the CCP and related CRC provisions


OTHER MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
The following conditions apply to this reference

The above terms and obligations for payment are provisional and may be reconsidered and modified by the court. The referee shall recommend an allocation of referee fees. Upon request of any party, the referee shall determine and report whether, the extent of and the reasons why any party is more responsible for the parties incurring costs and shall recommend an appropriate division of the costs of the reference based on that responsibility.

sanctions
fee allocation

Set forth terms of rule 244.2c-e
referee authority
report & order within 20 days
Objections within 15 days
Notice & request for hearing

All applicable provisions of statute, California Rules of Court and local rules are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth herein.

APPROVAL AS TO FORM

contents TOP cases

San Francisco Discovery ...................... California Discovery

PROPOSED PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW AND INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION BY COURT
COURT REVIEW OF REFEREE DETERMINATIONS

REFEREE REVIEW OF OBJECTIONS. If objection is made to the referee's decision, such objections shall, prior to submission to the court and as promptly as possible within the statutory limits, be served on the referee. The referee may decline to revise its order, may reconsider and revise its order or may schedule additional hearings to review the objections. The referee shall provide a formal written response to the objections as promptly as possible and within five business days. If there is no response or the referee declines to revise the order, the matter may be submitted for independent review. If the referee revises its recommendation, the time to commence review shall recommence in accord with the timing of the revision. If further hearings are scheduled, further proceedings shall be had before the referee as required by the referee to render its decision and the review process shall recommence in accord with the timing of the new decision.

SUBMISSION OF ORDER TO COURT. A final order from the court should be obtained as promptly as possible. Counsel and the referee are expected to stipulate to a prompt submission when formal objection will not be raised and the order can be signed without further proceedings. No order shall be submitted for signature by the court until the time to object has expired, by law or stipulation, or until all proceedings before the referee on the issues to be determined by the order have been completed, including the opportunity to review, reconsider and act upon any objections. The order should reflect the fact that the time to object has expired or has been waived and counsel have stipulated that the order may be signed without further proceedings or delay or the fact that the time to object has expired and no objections have been received. Counsel should approve such order as to form. Such order may then be signed without further proceedings by the court.

SUBMISSION TO COURT FOR REVIEW. When objection is raised to the referee's decision and the matter submitted to the court for review, the original moving party shall submit all relevant papers in a binder with appropriate tabs and should schedule the matter for hearing on the regular motion calendar. The binder should contain at least the following: the initial moving and opposing papers, the referee's decision, the objection to the referee's decisions and response thereto. The matter shall be set for hearing by the moving party on any day available on the court calendar on a date agreeable to all parties litigant or upon 5 court days notice. Should the moving party not promptly submit the relevant papers and schedule the matter for hearing any other party to the motion may do so.