How to Prepare Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

Useful Rulings on Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

Recent Rulings on Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

201-225 of 10000 results

LINDSEY BLUEITT VS LINDA TURNBULL

To date, Plaintiff has failed to provide responses to all the discovery requests. Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s responses to the discoveries and for monetary sanctions. DISCUSSION If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RUBEN ARANDA VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF SEVENTH-D

The standard of good cause requires the moving party to produce specific facts justifying discovery and that the inquiry be relevant to the subject matter of the action or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840.) Defendants state that in July 2019, Plaintiff submitted to a physical neurological examination by Defendants’ medical examiner, Dr. Jeffrey Bounds. However, since Plaintiff’s medical examination with Dr.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

ELAINE FERREIRA DE ARAUJO VS JAMES S ANDERSEN MD ET AL

Moreover, Plaintiff has not submitted a separate statement in support of Plaintiff’s opposition. This is sufficient grounds to grant the motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(b)(3).) CONCLUSION The motion is GRANTED. Defendant City of Hope is ordered to give notice of this ruling. Defendant City of Hope is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days. The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

TESTIMONIAL CATHEDRAL LOCAL, CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST VS EQUITYKEY REAL ESTATE OPTION, LLC

As pled, Plaintiff contends that it did not discover the PDOT until 2019, when it was refinancing the property—i.e., the discovery date was 2019. Whether or not that delayed discovery was actually reasonable for tolling doctrines to apply based on the totality of evidence is a factual issue for discovery to uncover. The demurrer is overruled on these grounds. Unless waived, notice of ruling by moving party.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JORDON MODESTI, ET AL. VS MARINA N KAVANAGH

Separate Statement A motion to compel the production of documents at a deposition must be accompanied by a separate statement. (See CRC 3.1345(a)(5).) Failure to do so is grounds for denial in the court’s discretion. (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 891-94.) Here, Plaintiff did not file a separate statement as required. Merits On January 9, 2020, Plaintiffs served a “Notice of Taking Deposition and Request for Production of Documents” on M. Kavanagh, scheduling M.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

HIPOLITO PAUL CARRANZA VS SPEARS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a)(5) requires a separate statement to be filed with a motion to quash the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition. A separate statement is not required where a court has allowed the moving party to submit—in place of a separate statement—a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(b)(2).) Plaintiff failed to file a separate statement with the Motion.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

STEPHANIE NELSON , ET AL. VS I E RENTAL HOMES, INC., ET AL.

The Court also finds Defendants’ argument that the Motion should not be granted due to discovery being in its preliminary stages is inapposite. Under Swaithes v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1082, 1085, failure to complete discovery or other pretrial matters does not affect the right to trial preference for qualifying persons. Defendants also provide no evidentiary support for their argument that they would be prejudiced if this action is set for trial within 120 days. The Motion is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

CRUZ TREVINO VS FITNESS INTERNATIONAL LLC, ET AL.

The parties are ordered to participate in an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) as required by the Court’s First Amended Standing Order Re: PI Court Procedures (2/24/20), which is available on the LA Superior Court’s website, under the Personal Injury section. The hearing on the MTFCs is continued to March 4, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 27 of the Spring Street Courthouse.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

YERVAND TITIZYAN VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Legal Standard & Discussion Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

SELENA ROBLES, ET AL. VS GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.

However, the discovery of new information puts this earlier admission at odds. As such, the Court finds the motion is properly granted. Plaintiff Selena Robles’ opposition is without merit. Plaintiff Selena Robles presents no evidence that Defendant Evangelina Saucedo had reason to believe that Plaintiff Selena Robles was scalded from hot water at Defendant Evangelina Saucedo’s apartment.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

RUBY F VS NORCO EQUESTRIAN ACADEMY

(Complaint, p. 5; Defendants’ Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“UMF”) 1.) At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was a participant in a group lesson led by Sarah Kibbler, who is an experienced trainer at Defendants’ equestrian academy (“trainer Kibbler”). (UMF 5-9; Kibbler Dec., ¶ 1.) Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ trainer provided Plaintiff with an unfit horse named “Temper Tantrum” and was negligent by leaving the gate to the arena open causing the horse to take off.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

MACHUCHA VS LOCKHEED MARTIN GLOBAL INC

Plaintiff objections to the discovery are overruled. Plaintiff shall provide verified and substantive responses to the discovery on or before January 29, 2021. The court finds that other circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust based upon Plaintiff's recent unrepresented status. (CCP § 2030.300(d).) Thus, Defendant's request for sanctions is denied without prejudice. Defendant Lockheed Martin Corp.'

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JANE DOE V. RICHARD ROES

All requests for a "follow up" and/or "second wave" of discovery are denied without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

THE NINTHLINK INC VS NECTAR7 MEDIA LLC

The discovery responses and deposition testimony do not support any reasonable conclusion that the individual Defendants somehow agreed to be responsible the debts incurred by Nectar7. In response to written discovery, Plaintiff stated that he was given assurances the payments would be made. (Defs. Ex. C.) There is nothing in the responses which support the conclusion the individual defendants agreed to be responsible for the bills, other than the fact that individuals made the representations.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MICHAEL LA PORTA, ET AL. VS DAVID W. AFFELD, ET AL.

Defendants also contend that Defendants would be prejudiced if preference is granted because Defendants will not have time to conduct the discovery necessary to assess liability and damages, or to prepare for trial.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

SAMUEL AVILES VS SHADOW DELIVERIES CORP., ET AL.

The defendant commenced discovery, which revealed that the plaintiff had been treated for post-concussion symptoms with Kaiser in 2000. The defendant followed up with a subpoena to Kaiser, but Kaiser indicated it would only release the records with a signed authorization from the plaintiff. The plaintiff refused to sign an authorization. The defendant ultimately filed an action to commence discovery with the Superior Court.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

CONTINENTAL VITAMIN COMPANY, INC VS ALI ALAVI, ET AL.

If counsel are unable to informally resolve their discovery disputes, then counsel are ORDERED to submit a detailed JOINT STATEMENT with respect to both Motions, outlining the remaining disputed issues for which a ruling is required. The Joint Statement must be E-FILED on or before Monday, February 1, 2021.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JAMES THOMAS VS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC ET AL

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s discovery delays explain his inability to plead facts related to his vertigo earlier. Yet Plaintiff knew, before filing the original complaint, that he had suffered from vertigo. Presumably, he would have also known that he sought accommodations for his vertigo that were denied. None of those facts would be in Defendants’ exclusive control. In short, the reasons proffered by the Defendant in its opposition papers are persuasive.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

147-151W. 25TH ST., LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS GRG COLLECTIVE, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

LLC, Babak Aframian, and avi aframian’s Discovery responses Procedural Background On March 4, 2019, Plaintiff 147-151 W. 25th St., LLC (“25th Street LLC”) filed the 19STCV07425 action.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RICHARD QUINONES VS JE GROUP INCORPORATED, ET AL.

(Separate Statement, p. 2:5-6.) VEHICLE is defined as “the vehicle which is the subject of this lawsuit and identified as a 2018 Tesla S, VIN: 5YJSAIE2 IJF2487 35.” (Id. at p. 2:1-2.) Defendant’s Response to Request for Admission No. 1 states: “Objection: Vague and ambiguous, and calls for speculations. Notwithstanding the objection Defendant has not [sic] independent knowledge of whether the accident [sic] has been in an accident.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JEROME OGDEN VS LIUMEIBANG ORGANIZATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

A much more efficient procedure would have been for Plaintiff to simply propound the discovery necessary to find out the information that he seeks. Defendants’ original answer was filed on August 31, 2020. Had Plaintiff simply propounded interrogatories asking for all facts supporting each affirmative defense, Plaintiff would have all the facts needed long before this motion is even scheduled to be heard.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MICHAEL MILLER VS JERRY JEROME MORRIS

Defendant therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions. Defendant’s motions are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs, without objections, within ten days. (CCP §§ 2030.290(a),(b), 2031.300(a),(b).) Sanctions are mandatory. (CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).) Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,110 for the motion.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

SHAHLA MELAMED, ET AL., VS JACQLYN ROUGH

Similarily, according to Plaintiffs’ notice of Judge Tillmon’s 7-5-18 ruling on their ex parte motion to enforce the settlement, Judge Tillmon also found that the March 9, 2018 settlement was “limited” and “did not bar the parties from asserting newly discovered claims, including claims related to the discovery of monies misappropriated from GFC by Rough.” See Dec. of J. Saccuzzo, Ex. 6.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FREEM VS. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION

(San Diego Unified Port Dist.) (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 856 [discovery “cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be more narrowly achieved”].) Here, FEDEX has met its burden of establishing that discovery is directly relevant to its affirmative defense of mitigation.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

ANAIAH SHEHORI VS DOE 4 RELIGIOUS LEADER, ET AL.

Plaintiffs “expect there to be significant common issues of fact and law pertaining to liability, notice, discovery, privilege, liability, and damages” and that “many witnesses in each case will overlap.” (Ibid. See also Varon Decl. ¶¶ 9-15, 17-19.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.