Q: Does Withholding Evidence from The Court Fall-Can Fall and or Does fall under The Discovery Process?

A: Withholding evidence from the court can potentially fall under the discovery process in California, as parties are obligated to disclose relevant evidence to the opposing party. Failure to disclose evidence as required by the discovery rules could be considered a violation.

Regarding your description of the plaintiff not submitting the "REVISED NOTICE AND MOTION TO VACATE," it is difficult to determine whether this is a fair or legally correct description without more context and details about the specific case and the document in question. However, if the plaintiff withheld evidence that could have materially affected the outcome of the unlawful detainer case, it could be problematic.

Under the California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3 on "Candor Toward the Tribunal" requires attorneys to be honest and forthright in their dealings with the court. If an attorney knowingly withholds material evidence, it could be considered a violation of this rule.

Fraud upon the court occurs when a party engages in egregious misconduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial process. Withholding critical evidence could potentially constitute fraud upon the court if it can be shown that the action was intentional and aimed at deceiving the court. However, proving fraud upon the court is a high bar and requires clear and convincing evidence of the misconduct.

It is important to note that the specific consequences of withholding evidence would depend on the unique circumstances of the case and would ultimately be determined by the court. If you believe that the plaintiff has engaged in misconduct by withholding evidence, it may be advisable to consult with an attorney who can review the details of your case and provide guidance on the best course of action.