13 Cited authorities

Dodge, Warren Peters Ins. Serv. v. Riley
105 Cal.App.4th 1414 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) Cited 78 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 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.
Argaman v. Ratan
73 Cal.App.4th 1173 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 64 times
Reversing discovery sanctions awarded self-represented attorney
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"
Emerson Elec. Co. v. Superior Court
16 Cal.4th 1101 (Cal. 1997) Cited 34 times 3 Legal Analyses
Docket No. S057119. December 1, 1997. Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. MC006881, Ross Amspoker, Temporary Judge. Pursuant to California Constitution, article VI, section 21. COUNSEL Hennelly Grossfeld, John J. Hennelly and Susan J. Williams for Petitioners. Hugh F. Young, Jr., Jan S. Amundson, Harvey M. Grossman, Sherman Joyce, Crowell Moring, Victor E. Schwartz, Mark A. Behrens, Nabil W. Istafanous, D. Dudley Oldham, Pepper, Hamilton Scheetz, Alfred W. Cortese, Jr., Kathleen
Davies v. Superior Court
36 Cal.3d 291 (Cal. 1984) Cited 34 times
In Davies, a petitioner sought disclosure of California Highway Patrol accident data, which came under the confidentiality coverage of California Vehicle Code § 20012.
Catanese v. Superior Court
46 Cal.App.4th 1159 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) Cited 5 times
Explaining the "interrogatories as worded effectively posed upwards of 10,000 separate questions"
Cembrook v. Superior Court
56 Cal.2d 423 (Cal. 1961) Cited 44 times
In Cembrook the defendant objected to approximately 40 requests for admissions of facts, moving to strike the requests and to be relieved of the necessity of providing any answer.
Smith v. Superior Court
189 Cal.App.2d 6 (Cal. Ct. App. 1961) Cited 29 times 1 Legal Analyses
Docket No. 10105. February 7, 1961. PROCEEDING in mandamus to compel the Superior Court of San Joaquin County to set aside its order sustaining a party's refusal to answer certain written interrogatories and to enter its order requiring such party to answer those interrogatories. Writ granted. Rawles, Nelson Golden for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Honey, Mayall Hurley for Real Party in Interest. SCHOTTKY, J. Petitioner, W. Marguerite P. Smith, seeks a writ of mandate to compel Robert
Frates v. Treder
249 Cal.App.2d 199 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967) Cited 10 times
Docket No. 29920. March 6, 1967. APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County striking a complaint, dismissing an action for damages and granting attorney fees to defendant. Philbrick McCoy, Judge. Affirmed. Finston, Kurtz Schneider and Philip M. Kurtz for Plaintiffs and Appellants. James R. Mead and Parker, Stanbury, McGee, Peckham Garrett for Defendant and Respondent. BISHOP, J. pro tem.[fn*] [fn*] Retired judge of the superior court sitting under assignment by the Chairman of
Section 2030.060 - Requirements of interrogatories
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.060 Cited 9 times
(a) A party propounding interrogatories shall number each set of interrogatories consecutively. (b) In the first paragraph immediately below the title of the case, there shall appear the identity of the propounding party, the set number, and the identity of the responding party. (c) Each interrogatory in a set shall be separately set forth and identified by number or letter. (d) Each interrogatory shall be full and complete in and of itself. No preface or instruction shall be included with a set
Rule 2.306 - Service of papers by fax transmission
Cal. R. 2.306 Cited 12 times
(a) Service by fax (1)Agreement of parties required Service by fax transmission is permitted only if the parties agree and a written confirmation of that agreement is made. (2)Service on last-given fax number Any notice or other document to be served must be transmitted to a fax machine maintained by the person on whom it is served at the fax machine telephone number as last given by that person on any document that the party has filed in the case and served on the party making service. (b) Service

Alma Delgadillo vs. Certified Auto, Inc.

13 Cited authorities

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.

Reversing discovery sanctions awarded self-represented attorney

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

In Davies, a petitioner sought disclosure of California Highway Patrol accident data, which came under the confidentiality coverage of California Vehicle Code § 20012.

Explaining the "interrogatories as worded effectively posed upwards of 10,000 separate questions"

In Cembrook the defendant objected to approximately 40 requests for admissions of facts, moving to strike the requests and to be relieved of the necessity of providing any answer.