§Why CasetextPricing

Memorandum Points and Authorities

undefined

8 Cited authorities

  1. Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court

    56 Cal.2d 355 (Cal. 1961)   Cited 293 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Greyhound, the plaintiff in a personal injury suit arising from a car accident sought written statements that had been obtained from witnesses by the defendant's insurance adjusters and investigators.

  2. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants

    148 Cal.App.4th 390 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 75 times
    Addressing the filing of untimely interrogatory responses with a motion to compel pending

  3. Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC v. Century Theatres, Inc.

    198 Cal.App.4th 1366 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 30 times
    Noting federal law's antitrust injury requirement applies to claims under the Cartwright Act

  4. Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young Co.

    223 Cal.App.3d 1429 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 46 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming award of one-quarter of sanctions requested

  5. Dowden v. Superior Court

    73 Cal.App.4th 126 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 27 times
    Finding 1962 Annual Report “use[ful] as an interpretive aid” because “the Legislature enacted the State Bar's proposal almost verbatim”

  6. Glenfed Dev. Corp. v. Superior Court

    53 Cal.App.4th 1113 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 19 times

    Docket No. B108546. March 27, 1997. Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BC131389, Frances Rothschild, Judge. COUNSEL Cox, Castle Nicholson, Jeffrey D. Masters and Mark Moore for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Horvitz Levy, Peter Abrahams, Andrea M. Gauthier, Murtaugh, Miller, Meyer Nelson, Bradford H. Miller and Gregory M. Heuser for Real Party in Interest. OPINION VOGEL (Miriam A.), J. — BACKGROUND Several lawsuits alleging construction defects were filed against Glenfed

  7. Rule 3.1345 - Format of discovery motions

    Cal. R. 3.1345   Cited 34 times

    (a) Separate statement required Except as provided in (b), any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: (1) To compel further responses to requests for admission; (2) To compel further responses to interrogatories; (3) To compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents or tangible things; (4) To compel answers at a deposition;

  8. Rule 3.1348 - Sanctions for failure to provide discovery

    Cal. R. 3.1348   Cited 12 times

    (a) Sanctions despite no opposition The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed. (b) Failure to oppose not an admission The failure to file a written opposition or to appear at a hearing or the voluntary provision of discovery shall not be deemed an