United States v. Procter Gamble

Holding that, although Government suggested dismissal as a sanction for its refusal to comply with a challenged court order, Government could challenge that underlying order in ensuing appeal of dismissal

Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. LcL Administrators, Inc.

In Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. LcL Administrators, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1093, findings of "willful" discovery violations involving "evasive" behavior were upheld based on "responses that submitted no meaningful information" and the fact the responding party had "repeatedly ignored meet and confer letters [and] continued to parrot the same answers after two orders compelling it to give further responses."

Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp.

Holding that because objections to requests for admissions were unchallenged by a motion to compel a further response, the denial of sanctions was proper

Deyo v. Kilbourne

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.

Smith v. Circle P Ranch Co.

In Smith v. Circle P Ranch Co. (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 267, 272, the court set forth the basic elements of unity of interest, making it discretionary for the court to grant costs to a prevailing defendant: "Section 1032, subdivision (b), establishes two requirements which must be met to determine which defendants are entitled to mandatory recovery of an award of costs in those cases where there are several defendants and plaintiff fails to recover judgment against all.

Fredericks v. Kontos Industries, Inc.

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.

Redwood Empire v. Gombos

Upholding a finding of implied public dedication of a one-lane dirt road in the Santa Cruz Mountains

Chronicle Pub. Co. v. Superior Court

In Chronicle Pub.Co. v. Superior Court (1960) 54 Cal.2d 548 [ 7 Cal.Rptr. 109, 354 P.2d 637] we said that this last provision demonstrates "[t]hat the Legislature considered the State Bar as at least akin to a state public body or agency" (p. 565), and held that officers of the bar could claim the confidential communication privilege given public officers under former Code of Civil Procedure section 1881 A later decision, Engel v. McClosky (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 870 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 284], applied the tort claims act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.)

Burke v. Superior Court

In Burke the defendant in an action on an attachment bond defended against a claim for the expenses incurred in winning the underlying action, by claiming, through denials, that the attachment could have been dissolved without winning the case on its merits.

Hunter v. International Systems Controls Corp.