How to Prepare Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

Useful Rulings on Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

Recent Rulings on Separate Statement – Discovery Motions

1-25 of 10000 results

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Turner did not specify the ultimate material facts as to the economic loss rule as to each plaintiff’s negligence claim in its Separate Statement, instead reciting verbatim deposition testimony and other discovery responses, which left it to the Court the cumbersome task of trying to determine whether Turner established that Plaintiffs only have economic damages. (SSUF 44-61.)

  • Hearing

FALISHA PORTER VS PHARMAVITE, LLC

Finally, the issue of whether every single page of her employment file should be open to discovery is also an issue. For instance, what if she had private conversations about health issues unrelated to the damages in this case. What if she was asked to be a witness in a claim against another co-employee? The court can envision many situations which are unrelated to issues of her damages in this case and her representations to this employer upon which it relied in hiring her.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CHELSEA GOTTFURCHT VS RST & ASSOC., ET AL.

The Court concludes that Defendant’s failure to respond to the discovery is an abuse of the discovery process. The Court awards sanctions against Defendant and its counsel of record, Harry A. Safarian, jointly and severally, in the amount of $861.65, which Plaintiff requests as the reasonable costs associated with filing this motion. The Court finds this amount to be reasonable under the circumstances.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CARLOS HALILI VS FCA US, LLC

The scope of a deposition, like the scope of discovery in general, may relate to “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (CCP § 2017.010.)

  • Hearing

RAYMOND A. PADILLA VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY, ET AL.

The Court also finds that Defendant and Defendant’s counsel’s conduct constitutes an abusive of the discovery process, warranting sanctions. Therefore, the Court orders both, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions in the amount of $635. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Plaintiff’s motion is granted. Defendant shall submit to a deposition within thirty (30) days of notice of this order unless the parties stipulate to a different date.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

SIMON RUIZ-HERNANDEZ VS WALTER ZAMORA, ET AL.

The Court provides notice to Plaintiff that he must address the outstanding discovery, as Defendant has filed the following motions: (1) Motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, and (2) Motion to compel responses to demand for inspection and production of documents. These motions shall be heard on January 29, 2021, at 8:30 a.m.

  • Hearing

MARIELA DIAZ, ET AL. VS JOHN RUBEN RAMOS COVARRUBIAS, ET AL.

The Court provides notice to Plaintiff that he must address the outstanding discovery, as Defendant has filed the following motions: (1) Motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, (2) Motion to compel responses to demand for inspection and production of documents, (3) Motion to compel responses to special interrogatories, and (4) Motion to deem the matters specified in the requests for admission to have been admitted. These motions shall be heard on March 8, 2021, at 8:30 a.m.

  • Hearing

JOSE ZARAGOZA-HERNANDEZ VS DOROTHY MENDOZA

The Court provides notice to Plaintiff that he must address the outstanding discovery, as Defendant has filed the following motions: (1) Motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, (2) Motion to compel responses to demand for inspection and production of documents, (3) Motion to compel responses to special interrogatories, and (4) Motion to deem the matters specified in the requests for admission to have been admitted. These motions shall be heard on March 8, 2021, at 8:30 a.m.

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

The scope of a deposition, like the scope of discovery in general, may relate to “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (CCP § 2017.010.)

  • Hearing

HAROULA SPYROPOULOUS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A GOVERNMENT ENTITY

To invoke the delayed discovery rule so that the accrual of time for statute of limitations purposes stops, a plaintiff must plead: (1) facts showing reasonable diligence; and (2) the time and manner of discovery. (WA Southwest 2, LLC v. First American Title Ins. Co. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 140, 156-157.) The delayed discovery doctrine only delays accrual until the plaintiff has, or should have, inquiry notice of the cause of action. (Id.)

  • Hearing

JINKUN CHA, ET AL. VS PACIFIC EXPRESSWAY, INC., A CORPORATION , ET AL.

“A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Chen v. Berenjian (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 811, 822.) As analyzed above, the complaint sufficiently alleges pleads a claim against Viewsonic based on Viewsonic’s alleged negligence management and maintenance of its property. Any ambiguity concerning specific facts pertaining to Viewsonic can be clarified through discovery.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DAVID LAHYANI VS ROBERT SCOTT REHLING ET AL

The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was unaware of the true names of Does 1-50, and specifically alleged Jane Doe was an unascertained female whose identity would be ascertained through discovery. Although Defendant argues Plaintiff was made aware of Maddy’s and Janeen’s true names on 6/15/19, when Defendant produced discovery responses to Plaintiff, this is extrinsic evidence improper to consider on demurrer.

  • Hearing

JINSONG SHI VS ALG LAWYERS INC., ET AL.

Nevertheless, unsupported attorneys fee allegations need not be stricken pursuant to a motion to strike, since later discovery may reveal a basis for their recovery. (Camenisch v. Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1689, 1699.) The motion to strike is denied. Date: December 1, 2020 Honorable Stuart M. Rice Judge of the Superior Court

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

XIAOXING ZHANG VS ZHE ZHANG, ET AL.

“A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of Cal., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Such demurrers “are disfavored, and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Insurance Agency, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 841, 848.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BAHRAM JARIDIAN VS SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL.

“A plaintiff whose complaint shows on its face that his claim would be barred without the benefit of the discovery rule must specifically plead facts to show (1) the time and manner of discovery and (2) the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence. The burden is on the plaintiff to show diligence, and conclusory allegations will not withstand demurrer.” (McKelvey v. Boeing North American, Inc. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 151, 160.)

  • Hearing

ANTONIO VIRAMONTES TISCARENO, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS HAKOB TASHCHYAN, AN INDIVIDUAL

Rather, the failure to reply to the discovery responses appears attributable to Plaintiffs’ counsel, who did not respond to Defendant’s meet and confer attempts. Defendant, however, does not request sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel. Thus, no sanctions are awarded. Defendant is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

FENGXIA HUAI VS CALIFORNIA INVESTMENT REGIONAL CENTER, LLC, ET AL.

Separate Statement A motion to quash production of documents at a deposition must be accompanied by a separate statement setting forth the particular documents. (See California Rules of Court Rule 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, CIRC did not file a separate statement as required. However, given the relative simplicity of the issues, the court will dispose of this requirement in this instance.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GEVORK ("GEORGE") BASMADJIAN, ET AL. VS HOME DEPOST U.S.A., INC;, ET AL.

However, the court notes that on 10/23/20, Defendant filed what appear to be identical motions to compel further against Plaintiff set for hearing on 3/17/21, and that Defendant reserved an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) for 3/03/21. It is unclear why Defendant filed the instant motions in light of the identical motions filed on 10/23/20. Nevertheless, Defendant’s Motions to Compel Further Responses are premature and will be continued to a new date as set forth below.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

REBECCA TOM V. KURT JAMES TOM

Defendants attached the medical record discussed above to their separate statement. Plaintiff objects to this exhibit on the grounds that it is not authenticated, and that it is inappropriate to attach such a sensitive, confidential document to the motion that is available publicly, and requests that the exhibit be stricken from the record, as well as Defendants’ reference thereto. The Court sustains the objection on the grounds that the document is not authenticated.

  • Hearing

ALPIN PATEL VS BRYAN ALLAN PAYTON, ET AL.

Dorman, in his instant motion, argues that because Bimbo is in bankruptcy, discovery is stayed as to Bimbo and Dorman as Bimbo’s former employee. Dorman seemingly argues that the action is also stayed as to him because he has an absolute right to indemnity as an employee acting in the course and scope of his employment with Bimbo under Labor Code § 2802.

  • Hearing

ORLI SANTOS, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS LA PROPERTIES HEFFESSE LLC, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Prejudice exists where amendment would: (1) cause a delay of trial; (2) increase preparation costs; (3) change the focus of the complaint; or (4) increase discovery burdens. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.) Issue No.1: Procedural Non-Compliance California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324 sets forth the necessary requirements for a sufficient motion to amend a pleading.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

WILLIAM BOYD CROOKSHANKS, ET AL. VS SERGEY DERMENDZHYAN, ET AL.

Nevertheless, a party may obtain discovery on any matter that appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) This rule is “applied liberally in favor of discovery . . . , and (contrary to popular belief), fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases.” (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546, emphasis original.) It is the trial court’s decision whether to admit any of this evidence at trial.

  • Hearing

ASIAN MEDIA VS GILEAD SCIENCES

Defendant failed to cite to material facts in its separate statement, to adequately support its arguments with respect to the 1st, 2nd and 4th causes of action. Further, there are triable issues of fact on whether DAE Advertising, Inc. acted as an agent for defendant Gilead Science, Inc., sufficient to make defendant responsible for amounts due to plaintiff. (DF 2-6, 8-11.) Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

SOUTH COAST FUNDING VS BAYSTER

The Court intends to rule as follows; Given that Defendant received the sought-after discovery responses, the motions to compel and deem admitted are taken off-calendar as moot. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409.) The remaining issue is the question of sanctions. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

JESSIE MEDINA VS. STATE READY MIX INC

In opposition, Defendants argue that delays in discovery by Plaintiffs and cross-defendants, as well as general COVID-19 concerns, warrant denying the request for preference. Defendants cite no authority for this position and it simply cannot be squared with the plain language of CCP § 36, which makes clear that preference is mandatory as to Emily and Luis Medina. The parties are to meet and confer and draft a discovery plan to address any outstanding discovery, including expert disclosures.

  • Hearing

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.