Last month, we pointed out an opinion that severely criticized the "wretched excess" of the appendix submitted on appeal.
Here's another reminder to consider whether you can cut down on the appendix without jeopardizing your appeal. (And, with it, a request to use the 4/3's voluntary e-briefing program)
See footnote 4 of Thrifty Payless Inc. v. Mariners Mile Gateway LLC:
"The cross-complaint serves as a relevant point for us to raise the issue of the 'wretched excess' that is the appellant's appendix in this case. (Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corp. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 210, 217, fn. 2.) It runs 20 volumes and 5,229 pages, along with an 18-volume reporter's transcript of 3,323 pages. We remind all litigants of rule 8.124(b)(3)(A) of the Rules of Court, which states that an appendix must not '[c]ontain documents or portions of documents filed in superior court that are unnecessary for proper consideration of the issues.
"Documents relating to the cross-complaint serve as a good example of the failure to comply with this rule. Although it was later dismissed and has no relevance to the issues on appeal, the appendix includes not only the initial cross-complaint, but the first amended cross-complaint,the answer thereto, and an amended answer. The preliminary injunction, also not a subject of this appeal, amounts to some 700 unnecessary pages in the appendix which contains all of the law and motion documents, including evidence, evidentiary objections, and proofs of service.
"We could easily provide several more examples of unnecessary documents not required by rule 8.124(b)(1)(A) in the appendix, but we trust that we have made our point: appendices must comply with rule 8.124(b)(3)(A), and the failure to do so subjects the violating party to potential sanctions (rule 8.124(g).) (Further, we note that utilizing this court's voluntary e-briefing program, while not required, would be of particular utility in cases involving voluminous records.)"