How to Prepare Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

Useful Rulings on Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

Recent Rulings on Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

251-275 of 10000 results

KEYTHEA WILSON VS VANESSA CHEN ET AL

Chen BC679261 Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses to discovery Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to her Requests for Production, Form Interrogatories, and Special Interrogatories. The court has reviewed the moving and opposing papers. The court rules as follows. Requests for Production Defendant is ordered to provide Code-compliant responses to Requests Nos. 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 18, 22, 24, and 27.

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

TEAM MAKENA, LLC VS. LASSO

MERITS As a threshold matter, the ManaMed’s separate statement in support of this motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c). Requests for Production (RPFs) 1-6 depend on Ossur’s responses to certain special interrogatories, but those responses are not set forth verbatim in the separate statement. Additionally, ManaMed’s arguments in connection with various RFPs relies at least in part on a special definition of “Ossur.”

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

FELTON BICKHAM, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS JAMAL BILL, AN INDIVIDUAL

Defendant does not oppose the request to correct his name, but he argues that the addition of a new plaintiff is prejudicial due to Plaintiffs’ discovery delays and an April 26, 2021 trial date. (Opposition at pp. 2-5.) Adding the new plaintiff will not expand the issues in this case. Defendant has sufficient time to take discovery of the new plaintiff before trial. Therefore, Defendant has not shown prejudice. Accordingly, the motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

DWIGHT CARLSON VS DYLAN KIRSCH

LEGAL STANDARD California Code of Civil procedure section 2032.310 states: “(a) If any party desires to obtain discovery by a physical examination other than that described in Article 2 (commencing with Section 2032.210), or by a mental examination, the party shall obtain leave of court.

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

HANI MAMMO VS ATHAS CAPITAL GROUP, INC, ET AL.

Given the breach of contract cause of action and available discovery, the court finds the subject cause of lacking support on the basis of insufficient legal remedy. The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. 2nd Cause of Action: Breach of Contract Defendants allege Plaintiff insufficiently articulates breach of contract, including insufficiently articulating the terms of the agreement, and performance of obligations.

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

FLEET LOGIC, LLC VS. TWENTY6 LETTERS CORP.

The court finds that sanctions are not warranted in this instance because Plaintiff believed that discovery cut-off was 2/24/20. At that time, trial was set for 3/23/20, and discovery cut-off was 2/24/20. On 2/24/20, the court granted Defendants’ request to continue trial “as set by Dept. F” and extended discovery to run with the continued trial date. However, at that time, Dept. F had not set a new trial date. Due to Covid-19 and the court shut down, the trial date was not reset by Dept.

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC VS COUNTY OF LA

Although Respondent may raise these arguments for the writ trial, for several reasons Respondent has not shown that these arguments justify denial of discovery as to SIs Nos. 17-18. In its verified responses to the discovery, Respondent did not object to RFPs Nos. 17-18 based on this prior discovery ruling or collateral estoppel. (Pet. Sep. St. 29-32.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

JANE JB DOE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A CALIFORNIA LOCAL PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

To the extent that any of Jane JB Doe’s allegations may indeed be unfounded or false, the parties may determine whether this is the case during discovery. For these reasons, Moving Defendants’ motion is denied with respect to items 13-26. Conclusion Moving Defendants’ motion is granted with respect to the Complaint’s prayer for attorney’s fees. Moving Defendants’ motion is granted with respect to the Complaint’s request for treble damages, and otherwise denied. Moving Defendants are to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ALFRED SOLORIA VS RICHARD J ROSIAK ET AL

. § 2018.030(a), is not discoverable unless the court determines that denial of discovery will unfairly prejudice the party seeking discovery in preparing that party’s claim or defense or will result in an injustice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2018.030(b).) Here, the Court finds that the argument of NAP and Hernandez as to the work product doctrine is baseless. Plaintiff is not seeking to shield disclosure of the documents based on the work product doctrine.

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

NUNEZ VS. AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC.

Plaintiff’s supplemental response states that discovery has yet to be concluded and Plaintiff has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct an investigation. This response is insufficient and does not comply with Code Civ. Proc § 2030.220. As it is Plaintiff’s burden to justify her objections, and she has not done so, Plaintiff is ordered to serve a further response to this interrogatory within 10 days of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. VS. JOSE LUIS TORRES, ET AL

Following motion practice and discovery, Leticia successfully petitioned for leave to filed a cross-action in this matter, with the operative, August 03, 2017, Second Amended Cross-Complaint (“L2XC”) alleging causes of action sounding in (1) Declaratory Relief, (2) Cancellation of Instrument, (3) Reformation, (4) Quiet Title, (5) Fraud and Deceit, (6) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and (7) Equitable Indemnity, as against Plaintiff and Defendant Jose Luis Torres (“Jose”).

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

BRIANA MACON SMITH,, ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

For each due date for discovery, Counsel must identify the nature of the discovery responses that are outstanding, the due date, and the address where verified responses must be sent. Accordingly, Counsel’s motion to be relieved is GRANTED. Counsel should note that after the order is signed, the order will only become effective upon the filing of a proof of service of a signed copy of the order on Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ERAZMO CRUZ, ET AL. VS DND PORTFOLIO, LLC, ET AL.

Defendants contend that the parties will have enough time to conduct discovery on Defendants’ affirmative defenses, and that Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced if Defendants are given leave to file an amended answer. In light of Plaintiffs’ non-opposition to the motion, the court finds that Defendants have demonstrated that the amendments are in furtherance of justice and will not unduly prejudice Plaintiffs.

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MOORE V. GATES

Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 590 [finding moving defendant may show plaintiff’s lack of evidence by factually devoid discovery responses after plaintiff has had adequate opportunity for discovery]; see Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Constr. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 80-81 [finding Union Bank rule only applies where discovery requests are broad enough to elicit all such information].)

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS KYLE CLANCY ET AL.

Good cause exists to stay this action, including discovery thereon, until the underlying criminal action has concluded. CMC set for 12/10/2020 is continued to 3/15/2020, 8:45 a.m., Dept. 10-D. Barbara A. Kronlund

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

PAGE BUILDING SUPPLIES, INC. VS DAVIT MUKHSYAN, ET AL.

Counsel for Nazaryan, Catherine Finamore, states in her declaration that Nazaryan’s failure to timely serve responses to the discovery requests at issue was due to inadvertent error and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns. (Finamore Decl., filed October 13, 2020, ¶ 5.) Finamore also states in her declaration that Nazaryan served her discovery responses on October 13, 2020. (Id. at ¶ 6.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MATTHEW BODIFORD VS. BETTY LEWIS,

His deposition testimony did not waive either the statutory privilege or the constitutional right, this lawsuit is not by him and is not inconsistent with his continued assertion of the privilege or the right, and there is no strong public policy at issue here that supports the compelled discovery. Plaintiff appears to have sufficient information in his possession by which to attempt to impeach Dr.

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

NAZARYAN V. FEMTOMETRIX

1) Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories (ROA# 391) 2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (ROA#398) 3) Motion to Compel Production (ROA#385) 4) Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions (ROA#398) 5) Motion to Seal (ROA#394) Discovery Motions Defendant Femtometrix, Inc.’s motions for orders compelling plaintiff Hovik Nazaryan to provide further responses to special interrogatories, form interrogatories, no. 17.1, requests for production, and requests for admission

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

MARIE MCGINNIS VS RICHARD GABRIEL, ET AL.

Accordingly, the Court will deny Broker Defendants' summary judgment motion. --- Plaintiff's Objections to Gabriel Defendants – Plaintiff objects to a number of Gabriel Defendants' evidence in their Separate Statement ("GDSS"). The Court will address only the objections concerning evidence used to make its ruling for the instant motion. Separate Statement Nos. 2-3, 17-19 – Plaintiff objects to this evidence on relevance grounds.

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KATHLEEN SOZZI VS SIERRA MEDICAL SERVICES ALLIANCE

Once enough discovery has been completed to conduct a meaningful settlement conference, counsel may contact the courtroom clerk directly to schedule an MSC. The jury trial scheduled for 01/03/2022 will remain as previously set. Barbara A. Kronlund

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

JEREMY BRAMER VS SHAWN DAYAN ET AL

Defendant Dayan never testified or stated in written discovery that he was an employee of Defendant Better Living & Care Homes, Inc.’s at the time of the incident. (UMF Nos. 4-5.) Defendant Better Living & Care Homes, Inc.’s undisputed material facts further establish the following. Defendant Better Living & Care Homes, Inc. has never entrusted Defendant Dayan with the operating of any vehicle Defendant Better Living & Care Homes, Inc. owned, leased, or possessed. (UMF No. 6.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

KIARA JONES VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Plaintiff contends that the complaint should be liberally construed, and “Defendant should obtain the details and particulars through discovery instead of motion practice.” (Opposition at pp. 1-2.) But “facts in support of each of the requirements of a statute upon which a cause of action is based must be specifically pled.” (Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590, 604; see Hawkins v. TACA Internat.

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SCHLOMO SCHMUEL VS. CASPAR MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC

The procedures set forth in California Rules of Court, rules 2.550 and 2.551 “do not apply to discovery motions and records filed or lodged in connection with discovery motions or proceedings. However, the rules do apply to discovery materials that are used at trial or submitted as a basis for adjudication of matters other than discovery motions or proceedings.”

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

DENNIS ROBLEDO, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS ALFRED ALVAREZ, AN INDIVIDUAL

Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party or party-affiliated deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

BLUE TIGER RECOVERY INC VS NEWELL HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR STRIKE ALLEGATIONS AND PRAYER FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES BY CLINTON NEWELL, CYNTHIA STAVA, SCION COUNSELING LLC

Motion granted with 30 days leave to amend or Plaintiff may seek to amend pleadings after conducting discovery. The gravamen of this action is that Defendants, sex-offender therapists who used to work for Plaintiff, set up and operated a competing business while working for Plaintiff using, and now continuing to use, Plaintiff’s trade secrets to operate their business.

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

  « first    1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 400     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.