§Why CasetextPricing

The Regents of The University of California vs. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

Motion to Compel

8 Cited authorities

  1. Josephs v. Harris Corp.

    677 F.2d 985 (3d Cir. 1982)   Cited 316 times
    Holding that it was an abuse of discretion to restrict plaintiffs' ability to address on redirect examination the impression left by cross-examination that plaintiffs' expert had no support for his opinion

  2. Oleson v. Kmart Corp.

    175 F.R.D. 560 (D. Kan. 1997)   Cited 42 times
    Stating the court could not compel defendant to produce documents defendant claimed did not exist, and the court had no evidence to the contrary.

  3. 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"

  4. Kirkland v. Superior Court of Los Angeles

    95 Cal.App.4th 92 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 4 times

    B152121 Filed January 9, 2002 Certified for Publication ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for a writ of mandate, Richard Neidorf, Judge. (Super.Ct. No. SC057503) Petition denied. Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney Priess, Jeffrey J. Christovich, Katherine P. Shannon and Craig S. Berman for Petitioners. O'Melveny Myers, Daniel M. Petrocelli, Robert C. Welsh and Jeffrey A. Barker for Real Party in Interest. No appearance for Respondent. VOGEL (MIRIAM A.), J. The Securities and Exchange Commission conducted

  5. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 23,110 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Providing for service via CM/ECF Systems

  6. Section 2031.310 - Motion for order compelling further response

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310   Cited 128 times
    Authorizing a motion to compel further response on the ground an objection is without merit

  7. Section 2030.300 - Motion for order compelling further response

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300   Cited 121 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Propounding party may move for an order compelling further response if answer is evasive or incomplete, or if an objection is without merit or too general

  8. Section 1013 - Requirements for service by mail

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1013   Cited 78 times

    (a) In case of service by mail, the notice or other paper shall be deposited in a post office, mailbox, subpost office, substation, or mail chute, or other like facility regularly maintained by the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope, with postage paid, addressed to the person on whom it is to be served, at the office address as last given by that person on any document filed in the cause and served on the party making service by mail; otherwise at that party's place of residence.