§Why CasetextPricing

Opposition To Separate Statement In Support of Motion To Compel Further Responses

Opposition

11 Cited authorities

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. Palmer v. Superior Court

    231 Cal.App.4th 1214 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 30 times

    No. B255182 11-25-2014 Edwards Wildman PALMER et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent; Shahrokh Mireskandari, Real Party in Interest. McLeod, Moscarino, Witham & Flynn and John M. Moscarino, Los Angeles, for Petitioners. No appearance for Respondent. Parker Shumaker Mills, David B. Parker, Mark A. Graf, Los Angeles, and Jason J. Rudolph, Santa Monica, for Real Party in Interest. ALDRICH, J. McLeod, Moscarino, Witham & Flynn and John M. Moscarino, Los Angeles,

  4. Sav-On Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court (Allen E. Botney)

    15 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1975)   Cited 98 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Sav-On Drug Stores v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.3d 1, 6 (1975), the court found that the language of the Revenue and Taxation Code reflected a clear legislative intent that tax returns be treated as privileged in order to encourage full and truthful declarations.

  5. Fredericks v. Kontos Industries, Inc.

    189 Cal.App.3d 272 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 36 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Fredericks, an owner responded to a request for admission by admitting he had agreed to make payments to a contractor according to a payment schedule.

  6. 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

  7. Holguin v. Superior Court

    22 Cal.App.3d 812 (Cal. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Docket No. 38600. January 12, 1972. COUNSEL Ronald M. Sohigian and Samuel Shore for Petitioners. Robert E. Cartwright, Edward I. Pollock, Theodore A. Horn, Marvin E. Lewis, William H. Lally, Joseph W. Cotchett, Leonard Sack and Elmer Low as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners. No appearance for Respondent. Bonne, Jones Bridges, Bruce J. Bonne, Horvitz Minikes, Ellis J. Horvitz and Morton Minikes for Real Parties in Interest. OPINION KAUS, P.J. In this mandate proceeding petitioners ("plaintiffs")

  8. 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

  9. Section 2033.060 - Request for admissions

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.060   Cited 6 times

    (a) A party requesting admissions shall number each set of requests consecutively. (b) In the first paragraph immediately below the title of the case, there shall appear the identity of the party requesting the admissions, the set number, and the identity of the responding party. (c) Each request for admission in a set shall be separately set forth and identified by letter or number. (d) Each request for admission shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included

  10. 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;

  11. Rule 2.251 - Electronic service

    Cal. R. 2.251   Cited 15 times

    (a)Authorization for electronic service When a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or fax transmission, the document may be served electronically under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, Penal Code section 690.5, and the rules in this chapter. For purposes of electronic service made pursuant to Penal Code section 690.5, express consent to electronic service is required.[]= (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2022; previously amended effective January 1, 2007