§Why CasetextPricing

Reply To Defendant John Yoons Opposition To Plaintiffs Motion To Compel Further Responses

Reply

5 Cited authorities

  1. Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court

    56 Cal.2d 355 (Cal. 1961)   Cited 291 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.

  2. Deyo v. Kilbourne

    84 Cal.App.3d 771 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 151 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.

  3. 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

  4. Singer v. Superior Court

    54 Cal.2d 318 (Cal. 1960)   Cited 44 times
    In Singer v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.2d 318 [ 5 Cal.Rptr. 697, 353 P.2d 305], cited by the Court of Appeal, it was held that answers to such questions should be required when propounded by written interrogatories; but such a situation is clearly different from that presented on the oral deposition of a layman.

  5. Professional Career Colleges v. Superior Court

    207 Cal.App.3d 490 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 9 times

    Docket No. E006221. January 25, 1989. COUNSEL Gregory A. Swajian for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Ron W. Alcorn for Real Party in Interest. OPINION McDANIEL, Acting P.J. This case presents an issue of first impression under the Civil Discovery Act of 1986, Code of Civil Procedure section 2016 et seq. Because we determine that the procedure employed by plaintiff must be considered an impermissible attempt to circumvent the plain provisions of section 2030, subdivision ( l), it was error