24 Cited authorities

Forthmann v. Boyer
97 Cal.App.4th 977 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 134 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Forthmann v. Boyer (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 977, 985, the Court of Appeal implied contestation occurs when objections are filed and rejected a claim that discovery was proper without the filing of an objection.
Valley Bank of Nev. v. Superior Court
15 Cal.3d 652 (Cal. 1975) Cited 196 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding plaintiff bank ordered to produce documents including private customer information must notify customers to enable them to object before disclosing their information
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.
Garamendi v. Golden Eagle Ins. Co.
116 Cal.App.4th 694 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) Cited 75 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that waiver only occurs where "the insurer either intentionally relinquished a known right, or acted in such manner as to cause the insured reasonably to believe the insurer had relinquished such right, and that the insured relied upon such conduct to his detriment"
Dodge, Warren Peters Ins. Serv. v. Riley
105 Cal.App.4th 1414 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) Cited 75 times 2 Legal Analyses
E031719 Filed February 5, 2003 Certified for Publication APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, No. RCV 060916, Ben T. Kayashima, Judge. Affirmed. The Greenberg Law Firm, Inc., and Raymond A. Greenberg for Defendant and Appellant James W. Riley. Law Offices of Perry R. Fredgant and Perry R. Fredgant for Defendants and Appellants Sandra L. McGovern, Patricia Anaya and Parthena Yorke. Jones, Bell, Abbott, Fleming Fitzgerald, Trenton J. Hill and Brian G. Mulherin for Plaintiff and
Deyo v. Kilbourne
84 Cal.App.3d 771 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978) Cited 153 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.
Clement v. Alegre
177 Cal.App.4th 1277 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 46 times
In Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, we upheld the superior court's award of sanctions recommended by the discovery master against Clement and MHCC.
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
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court
7 Cal.App.4th 1384 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) Cited 45 times
Holding that a party seeking discovery must make a "particularized showing" that "the information sought is essential to a fair resolution of the lawsuit"
Colonial Life Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court
31 Cal.3d 785 (Cal. 1982) Cited 60 times 2 Legal Analyses
Ruling that based on California's version of Rule 26(b), encompassing an identical minimal relevance standard, "Colonial's suggestion that the discovery of other insureds whose claims were negotiated by Sharkey will not yield relevant, admissible evidence, is patently meritless"
Section 2017.010 - Generally
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010 Cited 138 times 2 Legal Analyses
Allowing discovery of relevant non-privileged material
Section 2031.240 - Objections
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240 Cited 19 times
(a) If only part of an item or category of item in a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is objectionable, the response shall contain a statement of compliance, or a representation of inability to comply with respect to the remainder of that item or category. (b) If the responding party objects to the demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of an item or category of item, the response shall do both of the following: (1) Identify with particularity any document, tangible
Section 2030.220 - Answers
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220 Cited 20 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"
Section 2031.210 - Requirements of response
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210 Cited 16 times
(a) The party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed shall respond separately to each item or category of item by any of the following: (1) A statement that the party will comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling by the date set for the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 2031.030 and any related activities. (2) A representation that the party lacks the ability
Section 2033.230 - Objections
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.230 Cited 7 times
(a) If only a part of a request for admission is objectionable, the remainder of the request shall be answered. (b) If an objection is made to a request or to a part of a request, the specific ground for the objection shall be set forth clearly in the response. If an objection is based on a claim of privilege, the particular privilege invoked shall be clearly stated. If an objection is based on a claim that the matter as to which an admission is requested is protected work product under Chapter 4
Section 2031.220 - Statement that party to whom demand directed will comply demand
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.220 Cited 7 times
Requiring responding party to specify whether documents will be produced or whether there is an objection thereto

Motion Compel

24 Cited authorities

In Forthmann v. Boyer (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 977, 985, the Court of Appeal implied contestation occurs when objections are filed and rejected a claim that discovery was proper without the filing of an objection.

Holding plaintiff bank ordered to produce documents including private customer information must notify customers to enable them to object before disclosing their information

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.

Holding that waiver only occurs where "the insurer either intentionally relinquished a known right, or acted in such manner as to cause the insured reasonably to believe the insurer had relinquished such right, and that the insured relied upon such conduct to his detriment"

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.

In Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, we upheld the superior court's award of sanctions recommended by the discovery master against Clement and MHCC.

Noting federal law's antitrust injury requirement applies to claims under the Cartwright Act

Holding that a party seeking discovery must make a "particularized showing" that "the information sought is essential to a fair resolution of the lawsuit"

Ruling that based on California's version of Rule 26(b), encompassing an identical minimal relevance standard, "Colonial's suggestion that the discovery of other insureds whose claims were negotiated by Sharkey will not yield relevant, admissible evidence, is patently meritless"

Allowing discovery of relevant non-privileged material

Requiring responding party to specify whether documents will be produced or whether there is an objection thereto