§Why CasetextPricing

Motion Compel

undefined

23 Cited authorities

  1. Nativi v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co.

    223 Cal.App.4th 261 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 69 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under California law, a subordinate bona fide lease survives foreclosure, and the successor by foreclosure becomes the landlord

  2. St. Mary v. Superior Court

    223 Cal.App.4th 762 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 69 times
    Noting that under section 2033.280, "a propounding party must take affirmative steps—by bringing a formal 'deemed admitted' motion—to have RFAs to which timely responses are not received deemed admitted"

  3. Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court

    56 Cal.2d 355 (Cal. 1961)   Cited 294 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.

  4. Lipton v. Superior Court

    48 Cal.App.4th 1599 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 104 times
    Recognizing that a reserve of money to deal with the claim cannot be equated with an admission of liability or the value of the claim

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

    148 Cal.App.4th 390 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 76 times
    Addressing the filing of untimely interrogatory responses with a motion to compel pending

  6. Deyo v. Kilbourne

    84 Cal.App.3d 771 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 154 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Deyo, it was held that the materiality of questions propounded to a particular claim or a defense should be considered as a factor in assessing the propriety of entering a dismissal or a default judgment for failure to answer.

  7. Donlen v. Ford Motor Co.

    217 Cal.App.4th 138 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 51 times
    Finding such information probative

  8. TBG Insurance Services Corp. v. Superior Court

    96 Cal.App.4th 443 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 34 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding a diminished expectation of privacy in use of work computer when plaintiff signed a release allowing monitoring

  9. Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Superior Court

    64 Cal.App.4th 1496 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 30 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding real party in interest, an incompetent nursing home resident, was required to bear the costs of the petition on writ of mandate rather than the guardian ad litem who court noted was "not the real party in interest and no judgment can be entered either for or against" the guardian individually

  10. Redwood Empire v. Gombos

    82 Cal.App.4th 352 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 19 times
    Upholding a finding of implied public dedication of a one-lane dirt road in the Santa Cruz Mountains

  11. Section 2030.220 - Answers

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220   Cited 21 times
    Responding party who "does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully" to interrogatory may so state, but must "make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations," unless the information is "equally available to the propounding party"

  12. Section 2020.220 - Service of subpoena

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2020.220   Cited 13 times

    (a) Subject to subdivision (c) of Section 2020.410, service of a deposition subpoena shall be effected a sufficient time in advance of the deposition to provide the deponent a reasonable opportunity to locate and produce any designated business records, documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things, as described in Article 4 (commencing with Section 2020.410), and, where personal attendance is commanded, a reasonable time to travel to the place of deposition. (b) Any person may

  13. Section 2033.030 - Number of admissions requested

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.030   Cited 8 times

    (a) No party shall request, as a matter of right, that any other party admit more than 35 matters that do not relate to the genuineness of documents. If the initial set of admission requests does not exhaust this limit, the balance may be requested in subsequent sets. (b) Unless a declaration as described in Section 2033.050 has been made, a party need only respond to the first 35 admission requests served that do not relate to the genuineness of documents, if that party states an objection to the

  14. Section 2033.040 - Requesting greater number of admissions

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.040   Cited 1 times

    (a) Subject to the right of the responding party to seek a protective order under Section 2033.080, any party who attaches a supporting declaration as described in Section 2033.050 may request a greater number of admissions by another party if the greater number is warranted by the complexity or the quantity of the existing and potential issues in the particular case. (b) If the responding party seeks a protective order on the ground that the number of requests for admission is unwarranted, the propounding