Whether the appointment of a discovery referee without considering financial hardship and using an unfair selection process violates due process, equal protection, and access to justice rights

QUESTION PRESENTED : In a civil lawsuit in California superior court about real estate properties breach of contract and fraud, respondents abused discovery, purposely created disputes in discovery, and filed an excessive number of unnecessary discovery motions without good faith meet-and-confer. The trial court claimed it lacked resources to hear _ these motions and issued an order appointing discovery referee for all discovery purposes and had parties to pay equal share of referee fees which was also subject to the referee’s recommendation to adjust. This order was ruled without following well-established precedents to properly consider parties’ financial hardship and the economic inequality between parties. In addition, there was a lack of fair procedures to nominate and select the referee. The issues presented in this petition have an impact on civil litigations nationwide since there are recurring disputes concerning the appointment of referees or masters across multiple federal circuits. This case is an ideal vehicle to ; : resolve exceptionally important issues and to reinforce the principles of fairness in civil litigation when financial burdens imposed by the court interfere with access to legal remedies. Granting certiorari would allow the Supreme Court to address these pressing questions of due process, equal access to justice, and consistency in applying procedural protections to protect litigants’ , constitutional rights, particularly for the financially disadvantaged parties. The questions presented are: Whether the Due Process Clause, equal protection ; clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. u Constitution, and the litigants’ right to access justice implied in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution were violated when the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda appointed a discovery referee for all discovery purposes in the action without follow the precedents to properly consider parties’ financial hardship and economic disparity among the parties and through an unfair referee nomination and selection process. Whether it was a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution when the procedure in the state court conflicts with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 on the court must give parties an opportunity to be heard before adopting the referee’s recommendations.