§Why CasetextPricing

motion to compel further responses to request for admission

undefined

37 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Procter Gamble

    356 U.S. 677 (1958)   Cited 1,671 times   1 Legal Analyses
    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

  2. Williams v. Superior Court

    3 Cal.5th 531 (Cal. 2017)   Cited 222 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Concluding fear of retaliation cuts in favor of "facilitating collective actions so that individual employees need not run the risk of individual suits"

  3. Bright v. Dicke

    166 Ill. 2d 204 (Ill. 1995)   Cited 195 times
    Holding that our supreme court's rules are not merely suggestions

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

    163 Cal.App.4th 1093 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 78 times
    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."

  5. Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp.

    56 Cal.App.4th 618 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 106 times
    Holding that because objections to requests for admissions were unchallenged by a motion to compel a further response, the denial of sanctions was proper

  6. Bihun v. AT&T Information Systems, Inc.

    13 Cal.App.4th 976 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 109 times
    Finding workplace sexual harassment is a personal injury

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. State Farm Fire Casualty Co. v. Superior Court

    54 Cal.App.4th 625 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 82 times
    Underlying facts of an attorney-client relationship, such as whether a communication took place, the identity of parties who were present, and the date of the communication, are not privileged

  10. 2,022 Ranch v. Superior Court

    113 Cal.App.4th 1377 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 63 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an insurance company cannot shield claims adjusting activities from discovery by hiring attorneys to perform them

  11. Section 2018.030 - Generally

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2018.030   Cited 97 times   7 Legal Analyses

    (a) A writing that reflects an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories is not discoverable under any circumstances. (b) The work product of an attorney, other than a writing described in subdivision (a), is not discoverable unless the court determines that denial of discovery will unfairly prejudice the party seeking discovery in preparing that party's claim or defense or will result in an injustice. Ca. Civ. Proc. Code § 2018.030 Added by Stats 2004 ch 182 (AB