§Why CasetextPricing

Plaintiff Erich Mynocks Separate Statement In Opposition To Defendants Motion To Compel And For Sanctions

Response

7 Cited authorities

  1. Coito v. Superior Court (State of California)

    54 Cal.4th 480 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 53 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In Coito, one party's counsel attempted to use the efforts of the other party's counsel to find witnesses and information about the case that was readily available to both parties.

  2. Vinson v. Superior Court

    43 Cal.3d 833 (Cal. 1987)   Cited 84 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding no right for the attorney to attend the psychiatric examination and leaving that decision to the trial court's discretion

  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. 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

  5. Ryan v. Superior Court

    186 Cal.App.2d 813 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960)   Cited 21 times
    In Ryan it was held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to require the plaintiff to answer interrogatories requesting plaintiff to list the name of each biographee whose name appeared in the 1956 edition of plaintiff's work who did not appear in the 1957 issue, upon the rationale that each of these publications was equally available to defendants and that, accordingly, plaintiff should not be required to do the clerical work involved.

  6. Columbia Broadcasting System v. Superior Court

    263 Cal.App.2d 12 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 5 times

    Docket No. 32793. June 12, 1968. PROCEEDING in prohibition to restrain the Superior Court of Los Angeles County from enforcing an order requiring petitioners to answer certain interrogatories. Writ granted in part and denied in part. Lillick, McHose, Wheat, Adams Charles, Anthony Liebig and Michael E. Meyer for Petitioners. No appearance for Respondent. Rosenfeld, Meyer Susman and Norman H. Garey for Real Party in Interest. McCOY, J. pro tem.[fn*] [fn*] Retired judge of the superior court sitting

  7. Rule 3.1345 - Format of discovery motions

    Cal. R. 3.1345   Cited 32 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;