SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY
PRIOR TENTATIVE RULINGS
DEPARTMENT 610

By month and day of hearing, below are the prior tentative ruling and the final ruling of court for even numbered cases denoted by and following the word ORDER. Access by clicking on the day of the month of the hearing.

SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

CALIFORNIA DISCOVERY

April-May-June, 2000 Rulings
July - December 2000 Rulings
Year 2001 Rulings

2002 RULINGS
February - July 2002
AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

FEBRUARY & MARCH 2003

Tannehill v. Herland 400152 [2/11hrg] - granted.

Podjed v. SF Symphony 404840 [2/11hrg] - granted.

Barlow v. Needham 410234 [2/11hrg] - granted as to all motions

Douglas v. Tobin 324668 [2/11hrg] - denied.

da Silva v. Patrick 401435 [2/11hrg] - denied. There appears to be no reason why the discovery sought could not have been conducted in a timely manner. A change in counsel or the entry of a new insurance company claims adjustor and the resulting change in trial preparation and or strategy cannot alone justify reopening discovery. The subject of the proposed discovery has long been an issue and the amendment of the complaint has not injected new injuries. Reopening discovery will result in considerable expense in time and money to plaintiff. It does not appear that Judge Alvarado intended to reopen discovery on this issue.

Sieroty v. Ferdon 412622 [2/11] - It appears that the attachment should be denied for lack of standing for plaintiff to sue for the corporate debt; otherwise the attachment should be granted.

Doe v. Katz 410920 [2/11hrg] late - It appears that plaintiff is entitled to the discovery sought. Counsel must discuss each item prior to the hearing. The court may award sanctions in the amount of $100 per discovery request absent a showing of substantial justification for contesting the matter.

weiss v. Weiss 751604 [2/11/hrg] - granted.

Tutor-Saliba v. Doherty 319318 [2/11hrg] - All general objections are stricken and defendant is ordered to pay to plaintiff forthwith the amount of $1000 since such objections necessitate a motion and are made without substantial justification. See "Practice Points" on website for futher details and explanation.
Defendant failed to respond to the meet and confer letter of plaintiff in violation of CCP2023 requiring compensatory sanctions for the failure to meet and confer. If defendant feels a request is overbroad or burdensome, such matters should be discussed and resolved in good faith rather than requiring a motion. The motion procedure tends to unnecessaryily require the expenditure of time and money by the parties.
It appears that defendant will produce documents; any remaining issues must be discussed prior to the hearing.
It further appears that the requested monetary sanctions should be granted.

Dibler v. AC&s 411542 [2/13hrg] - granted. No opposition or reply received.

Wright v. Good Samaritan 309656 [2/13hrg] - granted.

Mixon-White v. Fellowship Academy 407236 [2/13hrg] - Plaintiff met and conferred but had to exert unnecessary effort and make a motion to obtain discovery which has been delayed for many months. However, under the circumstances it appears that reasonable compensation is in the amount of $1000 assuming no appearance on the motion is required by opposing counsel.

Varni v. SF Hilton 321790 [2/13hrg] - Depositions are taken as a matter or right when noticed. Those seeking protection for good cause must seek a protective order. There should not be any need to appoint a referee to set depositions if counsel will comply with the law and, when absolutely necessary, make reasonable accommodations for the needs of witnesses or counsel. This matter is now set for trial April 1st and counsel must complete the depositions. Counsel must meet and confer to set the depositions prior to the hearing. If not set, counsel must meet and confer on a mutually agreeable person to serve as referee and, if such person is not agreed upon, counsel must submit the names and CV's of persons willing to serve and who they nominate per CCP 639.

Brown v. Jelinek 406138 [2/13hrg] - It appears that the document requests are excessive and should be limited. Defendants should first ascertain by inquiry what categories contain documents. Plaintiff should prioritize its request and explain its need for the documents since it must show good cause for production. The matter should be continued until counsel have met and conferred in good faith to agree on reasonable discovery without prejudice to seeking specific documents at a later date.

825 Geary v. Modica 600064 [2/13hrg] - Granted as to monetary, evidentiary and terminating sanctions.

Robles v. CCSF 187776 [2/14hrg] - granted.

Icke v. Mehler 321852 [2/14hrg] - granted.

Signatures Network v. MJ Net Entertainment 2/14hrg] - Off calendar. No motion papers available for review. It further appears that the action may have been dismissed.

Fire Ins. v. Pierce 409904 [2/14hrg] - Counsel must discuss each issue as to each disputed discovery item prior to any hearing to attempt in good faith to resolve all issues and to limit the items that need be resolved by the court.

Xun v. Chao 317070 [2/14hrg] - On the assumption that responses were provided to all discovery, the motion for sanctions is denied since it is not clear a motion was required and could not have been avoided with a response to Mr. Nash's fax inquiry of what was missing. It is not clear that the telephone response immediately prior to the motion provided that information or, if it did, that it was insufficient to obtain the discovery without the necessity of a motion

Clayton v. Merrill 403944 [2/14hrg] - Counsel may want to videotape the deposition. Depositions can be videotaped by law office personnel and provide a better indication of what transpires than the cold text. It also tends to put all participants on their best behavior. See this item under Practice Points on the webpage.
The deposition needs to be completed without unnecessary obstruction and the guidelines set forth in defendant's opposition appear reasonable. Alternatively or if further efforts are unsuccessful, a referee could be appointed to facilitate the process and, though an added and normally unnecessary expense, it is less expensive than attorney disagreements and motions. A less satisfactory alternative is to call the court if a dispute erupts during the deposition.
It appears that the emotional distress claimed to have been suffered by plaintiff is the "normal" or "garden variety" emotional distress that would be experienced by any person who had experienced the general matters alleged to have occurred. It does not appear that plaintiff has sought psychiatric treatment or that any consultations have resembled psychiatric treatment. Plaintiff should eliminate any doubt about the nature of any claims for damages and the assurance that no professionals, including clergy will be called to testify. In addition, plaintiff's testimony at trial will be limited to that involving normal emotional distress such as the matters revealed to date in discovery. Under such circumstances the motion to compel a mental examination will be denied as irrelevant and an invasion of privacy.

It may be more appropriate to delay a decision re Pastor testimony until after the deposition and to deny the mental exam at this time without prejudice should the testimony of the pastor approach that of an expert counselor on emotional distress.


Fund Recovery v. Olguin 406512 [2/18hrg] - granted.

Fund Recovery v. Amas 407324 [2/18hrg] - granted, limited to $350

Fund Recovery v. Knowles 407990 [2/18hrg] - granted limited to $350

Gaither v. Raybestos [2/18hrg] - granted.

Zacks v. Love 415530 [2/18hrg] - granted.

Rider v. SF Independent Physicians 413496[2?18hrg] - granted.

Emigh v. Martocchio 407042 [2/18hrg] - No opposition or court file available for review. It appears the subpoena is overbroad and violative of the right to privacy and the subpoena should be quashed. See Practice Points re possible procedure for modification of subpoena or plaintiff review of docs for screening prior to production to defendant. Plaintiff has not established that there is a substantial probability that plaintiff will establish by clear and convincing evidence that defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud or malice.

Nudelman v. Kyprose 323474 [2/18hrg] - granted.

CCSF v. Lam 405224 [2/18hrg] - granted.

Haddad v. Culwell 401332 [2/18hrg] - denied it appearing that the discovery was provided and the sanctions would be excessive. However, it appearing that compliance with the prior order was not obtained without filing the present motion and that a lesser sanction may b awarded and it appropriate, additional monetary sanctions are granted in the amount of $250

International Marine v. Solverstar 324196 [2/19hrg] - granted.

Orr v. XXX 401052 [2/19hrg] - No papers available for review. Counsel should email or fax copies asap.

Lei v. MBNA Fleet 406420 [2/19hrg] -
It appears from the responses that additional documents exist or likely may exist and that a complete search has not been conducted. Therefore, further resonses, and perhaps further search, are required at this time or within a reasonable agreed upon time frame. No opposition received. Counsel should email or fax a copy of the opposition asap.

Fullerton Med Group v. Brown & Toland 319610 [2/19hrg] - It appears that a stay of discovery has been issued in this case. It also appears that this matter may have been assigned to a single judge for all purposes. See Jud. Adm. Std 19(c). Counsel should advise if any of the motions will be heard and which motions. Counsel should also advise if any matters are to be heard in Dept.610.

Parolin v. Raybestos Manhattan 312592 [2/20hrg] - granted.

Serratos v. Macauley 407660 [2/20hrg] - Comm'n Best disqualified from hearing Tenderloin Housing Clinic cases. Off calendar.

Bollwage v. Nunzio Corp 312150 [2/20hrg] - No opposition or reply received. Please advise if this matter is still on calendar. The motion and requested monetary sanctions should be granted. Plaintiffs would normally be limited at trial to the responses made in discovery. However, it appears there is no trial date at this time and a further response to interrogatories appears to be required. Esther should respond to all interrogatories without relying on a general reference to documents.

Seto v. Shultz 402102 [2/20hrg] - CCP2025(h) was added in 2002 to provide a right to certain persons to take or appear at deposition by remote electronic means but excluded party deponents from the list of those who had such a right. However and despite the purpose and intent of the amendment, the language as finally enacted suggested that no matter what the circumstances the party deponent must be present. In 2003 the word "must" was amended to "shall" signifying a less than mandatory requirement. Even if a court could not order a telephonic deposition of a party or permit the party to attend by remote electronic means, this does not require a person to travel from Japan to be present and Plaintiff may have to travel to the defendant's residence to take the deposition. Under the circumstances in appears at this point more reasonable, considering the number of counsel and parties involved to require defendant to travel to SF for deposition; but, a hearing is required.
Although defendant has responed to the admissions, sanctions are mandatory and are granted in the reasonable amount of $1500.

Bolden v. CCSF 323562 [2/20hrg] - Plaintiff must comply with discovery obligations and has been provided many opportunities. The failure to comply causes defendant unfairly to incur litigation expenses. The failure to comply prevents defendant from obtaining information and evidence about the claims made by plaintiff and prevents defendant from having a fair trial. The failure to provide essential discovery may result in the dismissal of plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff must pay those expenses and is ordered to pay the amount of $1310.

Olson v. AC&S 408324 [2/21hrg] - No opposition or reply. Please advise the court if this matter is still on calendar.

Chavez v. Stanley Works 408332 [2/21hrg] - granted.

Sanders v. Pick Your Part 179964 [2/20hrg] - Counsel must discuss each issue on each disputed discovery item prior to any hearing

Hegarty v. Handschu 414626 [2/20hrg] - Defendant's counsel represents that defendant Jerold J. Handschu is a resident of Florida and that he can appear in San Francisco by April for his deposition and the production of noticed documents. In view of the fact that April is only 40 days from the hearing date, it appears that a deposition during the first week in April in San Francisco would be the most appropriate time and place. It would also appear appropriate for the deponent to produce all documents at the offices of counsel for plaintiff at least four weeks prior to the deposition. In order to maintain the normal order of discovery, it would seem appropriate for any discovery pending against plaintiff to be continued for the same period that the deposition has been delayed. This is not intended to condone or in any manner approve of the unilateral refusal to comply with the prior notice to appear for deposition or the failure to file a proper objection and seek a protective order.
Under the totality of circumstances it does not appear appropriate to award monetary sanctions to plaintiff at this time but these circumstances will be considered in connection with any future motions should any be required.

Barger v. Andonian 4035666 [2/20hrg] - no opposition or reply. Counsel should advise if this matter is still on calendar for hearing and provide missing papers.

Richardson v. Green 411448 [2/20hrg] - Granted. No opposition received as of 12:25 pm.

Dale v. Kummer 404542 [2/20hrg] - Off calendar. This matter was not calendared with the discovery clerk as required by local rules. Please call 5513688 between 9 and 12 to calendar the matter.

Kalb v. Nefat 409614 [2/20hrg] - Although the subpoena is overbroad the injuries seem to have affected a large portion of the body and ultimately such records will be produced to a great extent. Absent further showing, time limitations do not appear to be a satisfactory basis for restricting records production. Counsel should consider the alternative for reviewing and producing records suggested under Practice Points on the website. In addition, counsel should meet and confer to agreee on the proper description and, in doing so, consider the burden on the hospital to differentiate among records. Sanctions do not appear to be appropriate under the applicable legal standard.

Hough v. Levi Strauss 409124 [2/20hrg] - Counsel should meet and confer to set deposition dates. The court suggests depositions be set and continue day to day until completed and to occur on alternate dates commencing with the 2d day of plaintiff's deposition. Defendants shall agree on the order in which they are to question plaintiff. This matter is continued to 2/27 for further hearing if counsel cannot agree on dates and places. If defendant must be deposed in LA then that deposition should be completed before returning to SF for the completion of Plaintiff's deposition. No sanctions should be awarded. The court does not encourage either self help protective orders or oppresive discovery tactics.

Wolfe v. Stengel 408876 [2/20hrg] - granted re special interrogs 5 and 15, and form interrogs 17.1, documents 4-8, 10; denied re other form interrogs and documents 9 and 11 without prejudice

Jung Estate 280089 [2/20hrg] - It appears that Petitioner accepted the objections including those re service and reserved modified interrogatories designed to accommodate the objections re instructions and definitions by dropping them, regardless of merit, and that such procedure does not violate the intent of the 45 day rule. The interrogatories appear to be normal contention interrogatories which if answered in a responsive manner will advance the body of relevant knowledge. Counsel should meet and confer in good faith in attempt to advance the discovery and eliminate the acrimony rather than consume excessive and unproductive time in court. In general, the contention interrogatories exceed the limit of 35 and seem to be excessively consumed with following every pleading allegation. Counsel might agree that a general response to multiple interrogatories will provide adequate discovery or that certain interrogatories are more important with those being answered and the others dropped.

Italfoods v. Nikamax 415804 [2/24hrg] - attachment.granted.

BMW Financial v. Botoshansky 402556 [2/24hrg] - writ granted.

Conservatorship of Fox 283494 [2/24hg] - The report has been tendered as a factor in the prior proceeding and has been produced to respondents. Work product protection of the report and supporting documentation was waived by the production and tendering the report etc as a factor in the litigation. Matters covered in the report are relevant to the subject matter of the instant proceeding. Petitioner's counsel suggests that Dr.Hammell is a consultant and potential expert witness in this proceeding suggesting the subject matter of the report is relevant to the subject matter of the current litigation proceedings. Termination of the work product protection of the report and backup in the prior proceeding is not a total termination of work product and counsel may retain protection of that which has not been tendered including private communication between counsel and it consultant and subsequent communications, consultation and work performed as a consultant.
The motion to quash is granted as to any material created after the submission of the report and as to any other material that does not form the basis for any opinion or conclusion contained in the report or that was not considered in reaching such conclusions or opinions. It is denied with regard to material predating the production if such material was considered or relied upon in the evaluation or report. Any material relating to any actual examination of the conservatee prior to the report must be produced.
Any documents withheld that predate the report must be identified on a privilege log and may be the subject of future proceedings.

Beckett v. Prudential 407032 [2/24hrg] - Privilege objections should be made to specific questions posed at the depositon.

Fiory v. Brooks 605062 [2/25hrg] - granted.

Miller v. Asbestos 319964 [2/25hrg] - granted. No opposition or reply received.

Talton v. Matzumura 410058 [2/25hrg] - All objections to the document requests, set 2, at issue are overruled and stricken. The motion for production and further response in accord with CCP 2031(g)without objection is granted. Further respond, pay compensatory sanctions of $1793, and produce by March 7,2003.
As to Set 1 documents, the motion is granted as to 1 re production of policy, granted as to 2 with objecitons overruled and a further response required in accord with CCP2031(g), granted as to 3 re further respond per CCP, granted as to 4 [although the relevancy objection may be valid the issue is not reached if there are not documents], granted re 5 and 6 as to statutory language. Respond and pay monetary compensation, limited to $2500 on the assumption a hearing will not be required, by 3/10/03.
Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY NO OPPOSITION IS AVAILABLE IN THE COURT FILE OR BY COMPLIMENTARY COPY. COUNSEL SHOULD PROVIDE BY FAX OR EMAIL ASAP IF THEY WANT IT TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT.


Wolfe v. Johnson & Johnson 409848 [2/24hrg] - Comm'n Best required to recuse himself from hearing Johnson & Johnson case due to financial interest. However, it appears that the subpoena is overbroad.

Eslinger v. Peak Eng. 409848 [2/25hrg] - The motion for a protective order is denied, except that portion seeking a stay until service of a subpoena on the water district. If the action is coordinated or consolidated on 3/3, a proper subpoena and notice will be required before any depositions.

Caen v. Stangle 403683 [2/25hrg] - Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Fund Recovery v. Saavedra 407968 [2/26hrg] - granted, limited to $300.

Clayton vl. Merrill 403944 [2/26hrg] - Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Clayton v. Merrill Corp 403944 [2/26hrg] - Although counsel should accommodate the needs of witnesses and each other to facilitate and accomplish discovery, when cooperation is not possible the parties should comply with deposition notices or should obtain a protective order prior to the deposition. Unilateral, self imposed protective orders in the form or ignoring noticed depositions is not an acceptable alternative since it leads to unsupervised chaos even when alternatives are proposed.
Plaintiff's motion is granted. The witnesses are ordered to be produced for deposition on seven days' notice. Monetary sanctions are deferred pending the actions of counsel and the parties to complete the depositions.

Weiking v. M&M Luxury 407320 [2/26hrg] - It appears that the discovery disputes have been resolved. However, plaintiff was required to prepare and serve and appear on a significant motion and incurred significant costs. There does not appear to have been substantial justification for requiring such motion and plaintiff is entitled to compensation for reasonable expenses and attorneys' fees incurrred. Although this is not the most complex motion, it clearly requires considerable time to assemble the documentation and do minimal research to present the motion. In addition considerable time and money is required to comply with meet and confer rules and other procedural requirements. In addition, significant delay has occurred which is compounded by "fast track" requirements and court calendaring delays. However, considering the complexity of the issues and other relvant factors it appears reasonable to award the amount of $3500. as reasonable compensation for the time consumed obtaining the discovery.

Yee v. St. Mary's 323994 [2/27hrg] - Denied. Defendants' experts presumeably have reviewed other discovery of plaintiff, have conducted any neccessary exam of plaintiff and have reviewed all medical records and are prepared to opine at this time. They will hear plaintiff's expert before they testify. Plaintiff has recited the prejudice to it of last minute discovery and its right to rely on lack of timely demand.

O'Connor v. Rathel 409364 [2/27hrg] - granted. The requests are narrowly tailored to meet the needs of the case. Defendant shall execute a written consent for the specific information to be served with a subpoena. The deponents are ordered to produce the information subpoenaed regarding the specific phone numbers and IP addresses.

Ladhar v. Blockbuster Video 324112 [2/27hrg] -
The motion to compel answers to special and form interrogatories and admissions should be granted. The discovery requested appears to be staightforward and Defendant should explain to plaintiff prior to the hearing any problems it may have and attempt to limit the time consumed at the hearing to significant issues that it contests in good faith.


rosen v. Forster 407245 [2/28hrg] - It appears that further responses are required. Counsel must meet and confer as to each issues prior to the hearing.

Union Bank v. Unicomp 416388 [3/11hrg] - granted as to the corporation. Denied as to the individuals in that there is no showing that they are in the business of guaranteeing corporate debt or that they otherwise meet the requirements of the CCP and Advance Transformer case as to a debt arising out of their conduct of a trade business or profession.

Clark v. CCSF 407796 [3/11hrg] - motion to quash granted as overbroad, irrelvant and violative of plaintiff's right to privacy. In addition, counsel are required to meet and confer in good faith to resolve disputes of this nature. Counsel may wish to consider the procedures outlined under Practice Points on the webpage to protect privacy while obtaining the records directly relevant to the claims.

Hough v. Levi Strauss 409124 [3/11hrg] - The current declaration is unsatisfactory and merely reflects that file remnants may be found on the harddrive that might be relevant to some issue in this case. Defendant needs to provide an expert declaration reciting the facts or allegations in this case relied upon that form the basis for seeking any information and the type of information to be sought and the likelihood of obtaining specific information. It should show a familiarity with Hotmail or Cragslist to the extent information involves those systems. E.G. Desktop used by Plt. during the period ___ to ___ was used to send or receive email allegedly sent or received on ___. or was used to access the hotmail account and by using it to access the hotmail account would now likely contain temporary files showing_____. Or that specific information contained on Plaintiff's hardrive will show efforts by Wildman to hack into Plaintiff's Hotmail account on or about a particular date. It should indicate what type of investigation is to be made and how intrusive, e.g. will emails be read for content will searches be limited will privacy be protected, will plaintiff have an opportunity to review and object to production prior to releasing information to defendant's counsel. The declaration should indicate if the search is simply to locate copies of emails between Hough and Wildman during a period of time or is a general search for specific subject matter or simply a search for whatever may be relevant. The declaration could specify the emails that have been found between the two participant as extracted from the Wildman computer at Levi Strauss. Ms Fredericksen should indicate if she agrees that reformating Mr.Hough's Levi Strauss harddrive prevents any recovery of data. Levi Strauss should be queried as to whether an image copy of that harddrive was made when Hough left the premises as is common with many employer's today. The declaration should explain why information cannot be obtained from computers, archives or back up tapes from craig's List or Hotmail. At this stage, if not already done, an image copy should be made and preserved of all relevant hardrives including those in the defendants' possession. However, the declaration does not show any particularized need for specific discovery and does not relate the intended search or target information to the issues in the case

Khan v. Jung 322244 [3/12hrg] - Counsel must discuss each issue on each disputed discovery item prior to any hearing. Counsel must also meet to prioritize and limit the scope of issues.

Forumdesign White Land 409866 [3/12hrg} - granted.

Bachmanov v. Kulya 411362 [3/12hrg] - Sanctions are granted as to the filing fee and as to evidence preclusion as to any matters that are requested pursuant to interrogatory 17.1 to which no response has been provided: defendant may not produces testimony, documents or other evidence to establish those facts absent further order of court.

Zarate v. Fong 186412 [3/13hrg] - grant the motion; deny the sanctions. Plaintiff's failure to comply with the order may result in a dismissal of the complaint.

Thelen Reid v. Hamilton 410276 [3/13hrg] - Denied. It appears that the amount is not a fixed or readily determined amount or that it is more probable than not that plaintiff will recover the amount sought.

Greenwood v. Instituto Familiar de la raza 500568 [3/14hrg] - Continued to 3/21/03 at 9:00 am. Peremptory challenge filed by City and County against Comm'n Best

Redding Mgmt v. Estreme Green Machines 415576 [3/14hrg] - ATTACHMENT GRANTED.

Niemeier v. AC&S 410294 [3/14hrg] - Plaintiff's motion is granted and no hearing should be required. This matter is set for trial on the next business day. Defendants have filed boilerplate objections and have not sought a protective order regarding the depostion or production of any particular documents at the deposition and simply refused and failed to appear at deposition pursuant to notice, thus forcing plaintiff to obtain an ex parte order shortening time and then to make a motion and appear at a hearing. To the extent documents have previously been produced or to the extent objections are made to the production of specific documents, those matters should first be presented at the deposition followed by a meet and confer on each of the issues. To the extent the General Order has eliminated a need to otherwise comply with the Code of Civil Procedure those matters should be addressed to the judge currenly assigned to asbestos litigation. See CCP 2025 and Maldonado v. Superior Court (1/7/02), Cal.App.4th; Marker v. Union Fidelity Life Ins.Co. (M.D.N.Car.1989), 125 F.R.D.121. The amount of $1800 for each pending motion appears to be reasonable in view of the work required and was necessitated by defendants abuse of the discovery process and failure to appear and produce documents as required by law. Defendants' requests for fees in the amount of $1800 each payable by 3/17/03 is granted as to each defendant, Tosco and Chevron. The depositions shall take place no later than 3/17 unless the parties all stipulate otherwise.

Bridgeport Financial v. Friel 411284 [3/14hrg] - granted.

Ocean View School v. State Board 406738 [3/13hrg] - No court file or papers are available for review. Continued to 3/21 at 9:00 a.m. or another mutually agreeable time

Doe v. Katz 410920 [3/13hrg] - Denied. Questions such as those presented in the motion should be answered subject to the objections made. Based on the moving papers alone there is insufficient basis to appoint a discovery referee over defendants' objections. However, counsel and the parties may benefit from the appointment at this time of a referee pursuant to stipulation of counsel and pursuant to CCP 638. The parties can also determine how to use a referee most efficiently to facilitate the discovery in this action. For example the referee need not be present at all or any of the testimony but may be available to call to resolve any disputes on the fly without the necessity of motions, court papers and court appearances. Normally the costs would be shared by the parties. Counsel may also agree to try this for one deposition or one day and procede thereafter only by stipulation
No opposition papers have been received. Please email a copy asap.
DECEMBER
Boers v. Bio Treasures 319200 [12/2hrg] - Counsel should advise the court if this matter is on calendar

Microsoft v. Franchise Tax Board 400444 [12/2hrg - It appears the general objections should be stricken as unauthorized boilerplate and the remaining objection should be stricken as boilerplate. The interrogatory calls for all facts and cannot be modified in the answer to only provide some facts.
The response to the document requests is not in accord with CCP 2031(g) and further response is required for that reason alone. Council must discuss each remaining issue on each disputed discovery item prior to the hearing.


Emborgo v. Zarate-Navarro 402304 [12/3hrg] - Granted. It appears that plaintiff has not responsed to defendants meet and confer letter. No opposition is in the court file or otherwise available for review.

Ruiz v. Allstar Hotel 404302 [12/3hrg] - This motion could have been avoided had defendant's counsel responded to plaintiffs letter which is not even required by code or rule. The responses were more than 2 months late and the letter was clear that a motion would be filed if responses were not received the next week. Monetary compensation in the amount of $1000 for the costs incurred in making the motion is granted, payable forthwith.

White v. O'Neill 172354 [12/3hrg] - assignment of rents granted.

Chan v. Cheng 40438 [12/3hrg] - Off calendar without prejudice to refiling and serving motion within 30 days and upon complying with the meet and confer requirements and CRC Rule 335. Counsel are both ordered to meet and confer as to each disputed item prior to the hearing. See CCP 2023(a)(9)

Shain v. Schmidt 185792 [12/3hrg] - granted re further responses to interrogs and $1400, assuming no further proceedings are required on this motion.
It appears that the production of medical records is not disputed and that the only issue is that of the time period. As to emotional distress, no declarations from psychologists or psychiatrists have been presented and there does not seem to be a basis for concluding that prior records on emotional distress are not relevant in this case. At this stage, a limit will be set at three years prior to the notice to vacate without prejudice to seeking additional records upon a showing of direct relevance to the present condition tendered. Sanctions denied on this motion.

Tutor - Saliba v. Doherty 319318 [12/3hrg] - granted without prejudice to reformulating the request to select specific documents directly relevant. Harding Lawson does not limit the right to privacy to non-parties or suggest that parties do no have the Constitutional protection. Requesting the entire personnel file is too broad.

Serafino v. Walgreens 404716 [12/3hrg] - any medical release should be limited to those matters directly relevant to plaintiff's claims; if plaintiff does not have possession, custody or control of the journal plainff can so respond including all the particulars of CCP2031(g) and it appears that at least a further response is required; plaintiff need not produce the entire calendar but only those matters directly relevant to this case including those days on which incidents occurred.
If plaintiff is claiming damages based on the effects on her marital realtionship, she has at least opened the door to exploration of that relationship, how it deteriorated as a result of the conduct that is the basis of the lawsuit and what were the direct causes of that deterioration. It is not entirely clear from the papers whether the effect on the marital relation was direct and significant. See Tylo case.

Ladhar v. Blockbuster 324112 [12/4hrg] - continued to date to be renoticed or mutually agreeable date. No court motion papers are available for review.

Pacific Bell v. Wu et al 413162 [12/4hrg] - granted.

Sybertech Waste v. OBF 415174 [12/4hrg] - granted

SLATER V. BISTRO 404026 [12/4hrg] - granted it appearing that the motion is unopposed.

Barger v. Andonian 403566 [12/4hrg] - It appears that guidance for this motion can be derived from the Stewart case re the limit on objections to be made at a deposition. In most cases it appears more practical to simply answer or stipulate to certain facts than to litigate each question. In addition, not only is the relevance objection preserved and by implication not appropriate, but it appears that the inquiries were relevant. Counsel should resolve most issues by stipulation of facts or by telephonic deposition and should select the most importance issues for hearing in the order of importance.

Villanueva v. Baltazar 182926 [12/9hrg] - granted re documents, further respond to form interrogatories set forth in the separate statement; verifiy all interrogatory answers and pay $550

CAT TEchnology v. Realm Connect 407432 [12/9/02] - Attachment granted limited at this time to $46,000. On further noticed motion by plaintiff or on motion to set aside by defendant the amount may be reconsidered.

National Office Partners v. SF Concepts 403858 [12/9hrg] - absent compliance with discovery obligations or a written stipulation on the subjects covered by the motion, the motion to exclude evidence at trial will be granted.

Garson v. Fasano 402464 [12/9hrg] - Counsel must meet and confer prior to the hearing to set firm dates for the deposition.

Chan v. Chung 40438 [12/10hrg] - see prior tentative ruling

Lim v. Valencia 191786 [12/10hrg] - Off calendar. No papers or court file are available for review.
Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Bourdon v. Hybl 400810 {12/10hrg] - assignment granted

Dormody v. A& R Plumbing 411812 [12/10hrg] - The Register of Actions shows that some party has filed an objection to the commissioner hearing the matter as a Temporary Judge. In order to determine who rules on this matter, the moving party shall determine what parties have objected to a commissioner hearing discovery as a Temporary Judge, whether they are still parties to this action, and whether they are “parties litigant” to the pending motion. That information must be presented in writing when the case is called for hearing.

Nobles v. Episcopal Commun.Serv. 324984 [12/10hrg] - Granted. Sanction to be limited to time actually incurred and billed if there is no hearing.

Vesta Fire Ins. v. Samayoa 404002 [12/10hrg - granted.

State v. Mickens 109788 [12/10hrg] - No claim of exemption is in the court file or available for the court to review and rule upon.

Atel v. Silicon Valley Networks 413556 [12/10hrg] - attachment granted. No opposition

Samano v. Taylor 407174 [12/11hrg] - granted.

Martin v. CCSF 319044 [12'11hrg] - granted.

O'Neill v. Plant Bros. 324014 [12/11hrg] - dismissal granted, it appearing that no lesser sanction will accomplish the purposes of discovery and no opposition having been filed to this motion.

Scott v. Evans 406482 [12/11hrg] - granted.

Firemans Fund v. Tandler 405694 [12/11hrg] - denied. action stayed by Judge Robertson order 11/14/02

Clark v. CCSF 407796 [12/11hrg] - perremptory challenge to Com'n Best by CCSF

Citi Properties v. Mena 604110 [12/11hrg] - It appears that responses were timely and that the motion was not necessary. Counsel must attempt in good faith to resolve all outstanding motions prior to the hearing.

Henteleff v. Wright 160052 [12/12hrg] - No papers in support of the claim of exemption have been received. Either party seeking a ruling should present the financial statements of the claimant.

Fireman's Fund v. Vahdani Const 320132 [12/12hrg] - It appears that responses were not timely served and that any objections have been waived, that the client has not verified the responses, that properly verified responses are required to be provided, and that responses in accord with CCP 2031(g) may be required. No separate statement is available to evaluate the responses to the requests. It appears that the moving party has been forced to incur attorneys fees in pursuing this discovery and the amount of monetary sanctions appears reasonable. The motion should be granted and counsel should submit an order approved as to form.

Anselmo v. Raybestos 310164 [12/12hrg] - The Register of Actions shows that some party has filed an objection to the commissioner hearing the matter as a Temporary Judge. In order to determine who rules on this matter, the moving party shall determine what parties have objected to a commissioner hearing discovery as a Temporary Judge, whether they are still parties to this action, and whether they are “parties litigant” to the pending motion. That information must be presented in writing when the case is called for hearing.

Bargerv. Andonian 403566 [12/12hrg] - Late objections are waived per statute and the objections do not appear to be well taken. The over 35 objection is required to be made by protective order. Counsel should discuss practical limits on the scope of #35 and must discuss all issues to be raised at the hearing prior thereto.

Groessler v. Ackerman 316242 [12/13hrg] - Off calendar. No papers are available for review. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Bollwage v. Nunzio Corp 312150 [12/13hrg] - It appears that at the time the motion was made, responses had not been served and that the response to 17.1 is inadequate and a response must be made to each subpart and as to each admission, and that each motion to compel should be granted. However, the sanction requested appear somewhat excessive and will be limited to a total of $2000. Counsel should advise if this matter is still on calendar and if it is opposed. No opposition has been received as to any of the four motions set for hearing. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Weaver v. Brooks Bros. 403920 [12/13hrg] - Defendant has not responded in accord with CCP2031(g) and has not provided declarations containting facts supporting ansy objections to the production of any requested documents. Therefore, the motion should be granted in its entirety. No opposition or reply have been received. Counsel should advise the court if this matter is still on calendar for a hearing. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Shain v. Schmidt 185792 [12/13hrg] - Counsel should advise the court if this matter is on calendar for hearing and should provide relevant papers for review. No papers or court file are available for review regarding the motion set 12/13 except for Plaintiffs' Supplemental Declaration re 2d set Special Interrogs. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

wu v. jiang 409564 [12/13hrg] - Denied without prejudice to renewal supported by declaration from plaintiff and points and authorities:further briefing and declaration is required from plaintiff on this application: specifically a declaration reciting the the basic facts regarding any accident, the injuries sustained and the financial obligations or bills incurred. In addition, plaintiff should provide legal authority as to the burden of proof and the elements that must be proved in connection with an application for writ of attachment.
Defendant's authorities do not support the proposition that defendant can use his own violation of the contracting laws as a defense and the authorities do not support that conclusion. There is a presumption of negligence on the part of defendant due to the lack of workmen's comp insurance. If plaintiff wishes to rely on discovery responses those matters should be submitted in a form that will enable court to find the relevant questions and answers and should be submitted as a separate statement in the form required by CRC Rule 335.

Grassi v. Elrod 409334 [12/13hrg] - Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Mondragon v. Pineda 375096 [12/20hrg] - motion to quash denied.
NOVEMBER
Young v. APGreen 400702 [11/1hrg] - objection to commissioner filed; counsel must determine if any objector is a party litigant to this motion and advise the court prior to the hearing; no tentative ruling

Smith v. Baker 304750 [11/1hrg] - It appears that defendant has not received the original discovery. The motion is granted insofar as it seeks to compel responses and appearances at a deposition. Responses including any objections must be served by November 27th. Sanctions are denied at this time but the facts regarding this discovery will be considered on any furture motions.

Failauga v. PG&E 321712 [11/1hrg] - granted. No trial date, case pending 18 months, no prejudice to PG&E, and CCSF trial counsel wants to attend what is considered to be a critical deposition but is currently in trial.

Fullerton v. Brown & Toland 319610 [11/1hrg] - Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY
general objections are stricken as not authorized and contrary to the CCP provisions; see Practic Point on this subject on the web page.
Defendants have the burden of proof to establish any objections including all privileges by factual showings and each objection to each discovery request must be discussed in the context of and as it applies to the specific discovery request and the specific documents, by the parties prior to discussion in court; defendants must respond in accord with CCP2031 and, for example, if a privilege is asserted identify the specific privilege and the specific docuements to which it applies; thereafter the factual showing as to that privilege's applicability to the identified documents must be made by declaration.
Korea Data recognized that parties mights not follow the clear dictates of the CCP and that at least with regard to the attorney client privilege the failure to do so should not be an automatice and irreversible waiver of that privilege. However, the failure to comply with the CCP requirements should result in monetary sanctions to fully compensate the requesting party.
It appears that defendants should be ordered to respond in accord with the CCP in all its particulars and to pay plaintiff's for the expenses incurred in making this motion.


Dickerman v. Asbestos 300726 [11/4hrg] - Objection to commissioner; no tentative ruling

Ouma v. Econo Lodge 324 456 [11/4hrg] - counsel must discuss each item in dispute prior to the hearing; it appears that a limited and perhaps redacted document should be produced and some response to interrogatory 11 would be appropriate.

Golden Gate Spiritualist v. Jordon 324234 [11/4hrg] - The minutes appear disocoverable and the motion should be granted but sanctions denied.

Cosmopolitan v. Albion Pacific 412642 [11/5hrg] - granted.

United Meat v. Redwood Park 412648 [11/5hrg] - granted re Redwood Park; denied re Steven Fretz

Litelab v. Fine Line 411502 [11/5hrg] - denied in that the amount sought is not a fixed or readily ascertainable amount that is properly the subject of an attachment proceeding.

Akhavan v. Calloway 600974 [11/5hrg] - granted.

Barbera v. WMC Mortgage 322066 [11/5hrg] - Counsel should advise the court if any further proceedings are necessary and as to which items remain in dispute.

Decodence v. GM Import 406032 [11/5hrg] - Although the original responses might have been worse and the amended responses have satisfied defendant, effort was required that should not be required to obtain good faith responses to discovery. It appears reasonable under all the circumstances to award $1800 as monetary sanctions at this time with $1200 to be payable forthwith and $600 to be defered. The deferred amount shall be payable in the event that defendant is required to bring another meritorious discovery motion.

Bank of Orient v. Brennan 411402 [11/6hrg] - granted

Flood v. Bessemer 401906 [11/6hrg] - granted. All general objections are overruled and stricken in that general objections are not authorized and are contrary to CCP and plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proof to establish any objections. Further answer by 11/12/02 to the extent further answers have not been provided. To the extent further answers have been provided the parties must meet and confer and submit a revised further statement if a further motion is required. A good faith meet and confer should eliminate any confusion or ambiguity, could focus on essential discovery and information, and should eliminate any further court proceedings. Counsel may wish to engage the services of a discovery referee in order to benefit from case management of discovery in the final days before trial.
It appears that both questions and responses could be categorized as "boilerplate" that is unlikely to yield meaninful discovery. Apparently, counsel have not chosen to enforce the legislative limit of 35. However, on balance the interrogatories appear to seek relevant and unprivileged information and defendants are entitled to respond in compliance with the obligations imposed by the CCP.


Reshko v. Lee 406310 [11/6hrg] - granted.

Rodriquez v. AP Green 401889 [11/6hrg] - Toyota's motion to compel answers at deposition is granted.

Bragg v. Boyd 408934 [11/7hrg] - granted.

Burrell v. CCSF 315752 [11/7hrg] - off calendar No papers or file available for review. Not calendared with discovery. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Livingston Mix v. Bertrand 413022 [11/7hrg] - granted.

Butcher v. Pogue 320146 [11/7hrg] - The referee's recommendation is adopted as the order of the court. This issue under the facts of this case is one of some discretion. Although the one deposition rule is not to be lightly disregarded or circumvented by "postponements", it is not written in stone and is not governed by boilerplate language in the deposition notice. Although the issue was not before the court, it is inferred that a motion for permission to take a "second" deposition would have been granted by the referee in that the referee found that it would be "unfair" to cutoff the deposition. It appears that the referee also considered and determined that it would not be desireable to try to limit the subject matter. If plaintiff believes the deposition process is being abused the best protection may be to request the referee's presence at the continued deposition.

Douglas v. Tobin 324668 [11/7hrg] - Ruling delayed but will be posted.
It appears that there are an unusually large number of routine discovery disputes on the eve of the scheduled trial and that this matter should be referred to discovery referee in order to assure that discovery occurs in a timely manner so that there will be no delay in the trial. The referee should determine which party is most responsible for the breakdown in the discovery process and recommend an apportionment of fees on that basis. Counsel should discuss the selection of the referee prior to the court hearing and, if unable to agree on a person to hear the disputes, submit three names each by Friday at 2:00 PM. The referee's fees should be limited to $300/hour and should be paid in advance 50-50 by the parties subject to reapportionment pursuant to recommendation of the referee and order of court.
Defendant's motion to compel responses to Set Two interrogatories is granted except that plaintiff may withhold the name of any client for which a case has not been filed or otherwise made a matter or public record provided such client names are coded in some fashion should it be necessary to identify them at a later date. Although technically the objections have been waived by statute and late service and the late objections should be challenged by a motion to compel further responses, the nature of the objections and pending trial date justify the consideration of the objections on the merits or lack thereof. Plaintiff is ordered to further answer all interrogatories and pay the requested monetary sanctions by November 13, 2002.

Other than numbers 13-17, it appears that there are no objections to the document requests and that all documents requested should be produced. A further response in accord with the foregoing and CCP2031(g) as to all required particulars is also rquired. As to 13-17 a further response is required to the request disregarding the reference to the code section. That further response and production of any such documents must be made on or before 11/14/02.


Linnane v. Lee 401266 [11/7hrg] - granted

Fairmont v. Developmentor 407804 [11/7hrg] - No papers available for review.

Marquez v. Hilton Hotels 401804 [11/7hrg] - Counsel should advise the court if this matter has been resolved and whether it is still on calendar for hearing. No reply received.

McCulloh v. Judicial Council 401676 [11/8hrg] -
Although persons with law degrees may be hired to perform functions unrelated to confidential communications between attorney’s acting as such and their clients, facts surrounding activities and communications must be scrutinized in order to avoid depriving other parties and the court of access to evidence on which to base a sound decision. The court must look to the purpose and function of the attorney-client communication privilege and to the specific elements to assure that the privilege is not being used to suppress relevant evidence when it is not justified. In California, work product originated as a litigation “privilege” and in many jurisdictions is still so limited. Although it has expanded to other areas of legal practice it remains the attorney’s objection and requires an attorney acting as such to assert the protection from discovery.
Defendant does not suggest that Farrow was hired to represent defendants as an attorney. Defendants establish that Farrow was hired by defendants to conduct an investigation. House counsel facilitated the investigation by arranging interview with various persons including plaintiff. Farrow conducted an investigation at the same time into other complaints against Hough. The declaration of outside counsel in this litigation reveals the conclusions and opinions of Farrow and some but not all of the contents of the interviews of the 6 persons in the concurrent complaint.

Defendant has not established the basic elements of the attorney-client privilege and is not asserting the work product protection. For example, Farrow has not been retained to represent any defendants but to conduct a factual investigation and provide her opinion. There is no suggestion that she is the attorney for Hough or anyone else. Nor does defendant seek communications between Farrow and her clients.

Although there may be third party privacy rights and, if so, defendants may be obligated to at least notify affected persons, those interests have not been articulated or supported with any meaningful factual showing. However, it appears that information on the concurrent investigation of the 6 complaints was not requested in the deposition notice and is no longer relevant due to the summary adjudications. Therefore the motion to compel production is denied.

In view of the prior obligation to attend a settlement conference and the alternative means of obtaining documents by request if appropriate, no hearing is necessary on this motion.


Richardson v. AW Chesterton 411448 [11/8hrg] - The Register of Actions shows that some party has filed an objection to the commissioner hearing the matter as a Temporary Judge. In order to determine who rules on this matter, the moving party shall determine what parties have objected to a commissioner hearing discovery as a Temporary Judge, whether they are still parties to this action, and whether they are “parties litigant” to the pending motion. That information must be presented in writing when the case is called for hearing

Warfa v. Goodwin 401350 [11/8hrg] - Plaintiff's motion for relief granted and sanctions reduced to $500.
Defendant's motion for addtional sanctions denied.

O Connor v. Rathel 409364 [11/8hrg] - Off calendar. Not calendared with discovery department per local rules.

Caen v. Stangl 403683 [11/8hrg] - grant form interrogs; deny 16-19, grant 22-29 excluding any 1157 imposed discipline

Carter v. Singh 191134 [11/12hrg] - granted.

Wilson [same re Hill & Smith cases] v. Housing Authority [11/12hrg] - granted.

Weidenholtz v. Weidenholtz 437730 [11/12hrg] - granted.

Keng v. Danahey 317720 [11/12hrg] - It appears that there is no objection to producing the requested MRI and plaintiff has or will do so. Therefore the motion should be granted as to the production and making reasonable efforts to obtain the MRI in plaintiff's possession custody or control. The award of monetary sanctions does not appear appropriate and is denied.

CCSF v. Tsang 401856 [11/13hrg] - refered to Commissioner Hewlett

McGuire v. Safeway 406618 [11/12hrg] - granted.

Green v. Pacific Mechanical 401192 [11/12hrg] - granted.

Harp v. Greyhound 403064 [11/12hrg] - The interrogatories are untimely and there is no good cause to reopen discovery on such; Counsel must meet and confer re any pmk deposition

Rivero v. Pankaw 402986 [11/12hrg] - Assuming this matter is a renoticed motion for the motion noticed for 10/4/02, the motion is granted. There are no papers in the file regarding a motion set for 11/12.

Tucker v. CCSF 407781 [11/12] - case miscalendared. Odd numbered cases are heard in Dept.612.

Miller v. Heffernan 325106 [11/14hrg] - granted.

Robinson v. Chan 400766 [11/14hrg] - granted.

Wallace Remodeling v. Borgo 402222 - granted

Velasco v. Asbestos Defendants 310074 [11/14hrg] - granted.

Gorosh v. Bessemer 401907 [11/14hrg] - granted. No opposition received. Appear for deposition 11/21 per prior notice. No declaration in support of sanctions and no specific request was made. Absent such declarations or any objections from opposing counsel, monetary sanctions are limited to $2000 payable forthwith. Otherwise counsel for the moving party should submit a declaration regarding the time spent to date in seeking the deposition. Sanctions are to be made payable by the deponent and his counsel and counsel for plaintiff.

Campbell v. Hanlin 404882 [11/14hrg] - denied. No good cause shown to invade privacy with mental examination when the issue involves temporary incapacity from cold medicine. Mendez v. Superior Court(1988), 206 Cal.App.3d 557,566, 568 [Constitutional right to privacy may be incorporated into good cause requirement, citing Vinson v. Superior Court re psych exam ]; Doyle v. Superior Court(1996),50 Cal.App.4th 1878 [Mental distress ceased prior to demand for exam and the current mental condition was not in controversy; only "garden variety" mental distress alleged in sexual harassment suit ]; Barrenda v. Superior Court (1998), 65 Cal.App.4th 794 [need psych expert declaration to show nexus between type of mental distress at issue and type of discovery sought; atty declaration insufficien; No showing of direct relevance of the discovery to overcome the right to privacy;t

As You Sow v. ADG Concerns 323070 [11/14hrg] - denied without prejudice to renewal within 30 days and after defendant has discussed with plaintiff each issue as to each discovery item in dispute and thereafter prepared and sumbitted a separate statement in full compliance with CRC Rule 335. Any facts must be supplied regardless of source and a reasonable and good faith investigation must be made including contacting currently employed experts who have relevant facts to supply.

Ach Food Co v. Atlanta Trading 408024 [11/15hrg] - granted.

Davis v. AC&S 410440 [ - The Register of Actions shows that some party has filed an objection to the commissioner hearing the matter as a Temporary Judge. In order to determine who rules on this matter, the moving party shall determine what parties have objected to a commissioner hearing discovery as a Temporary Judge, whether they are still parties to this action, and whether they are “parties litigant” to the pending motion. That information must be presented in writing when the case is called for hearing.

Santis v. Santis 750354 [11/15hrg] - this matter was previously continued. Counsel should notify the court if the matter is still on calendar for hearing, and, if so, if the issues remain the same or have been limited or resolved in any manner.

K.E.Y Resources v. Apodaca Investment 176816 [11/15hrg] - No papers are available for review or in the court file.

Roachell v. Asbestos 319976 [11/15hrg] - Any motion for continuance or severance must be made to Dept 302 or the Dept of the Presiding Jduge.
The Register of Actions shows that some party has filed an objection to the commissioner hearing the matter as a Temporary Judge. In order to determine who rules on this matter, the moving party shall determine what parties have objected to a commissioner hearing discovery as a Temporary Judge, whether they are still parties to this action, and whether they are “parties litigant” to the pending motion. That information must be presented in writing when the case is called for hearing.

Marquez v. Hilton Hotels 401804 [11/15hrg] - It appears that this matter may have been determined in a prior hearing and counsel are requested to contact the court and advise if this matter is still on calendar. No opposition or reply has been received.

Tsang v. Poole-Khatib 343246 [11/15hrg] - If the parties appear the order will dismiss the action but allow plaintiff to set aside the order if she pays the reporter's fee and appears for her deposition.
To avoid an unnecessary appearance the parties should agree as follows: Plaintiff must pay the reporters bill immediately upon presentation of a copy and submit to deposition immediately. The parties should take the depostion on Friday at 9:00 rather than appear for a hearing.

Shaefer v. Raybestos 306720 [11/18hrg] - The Register of Actions shows that some party has filed an objection to the commissioner hearing the matter as a Temporary Judge. In order to determine who rules on this matter, the moving party shall determine what parties have objected to a commissioner hearing discovery as a Temporary Judge, whether they are still parties to this action, and whether they are “parties litigant” to the pending motion. That information must be presented in writing when the case is called for hearing.

Rosenthal v. Steele 318040 [11/18] - granted.

Economy Restaurant v. Galette 412694 [11/18hrg] - attachment granted.

Economy Restaurants v. Panissimo 412692 [11/18hrg] - attachment granted

Gorosh v. Bessemer Trust 401907 [11/18hrg] - Motion for protective order re "Bessemer Standard" denied.
It appears that two motions regarding the scheduling of expert depositions have been filed but papers for such motions are not available for review. However, it appears that there are 8-10 expert depositions to be scheduled in the next 21 days. It also appears that plaintiff's experts should be deposed first because it is the natural order, because defendants have suggested their experts will not be able to give final or complete depositions unless they have one week to respond to plaintiff's experts, because they were noticed first, and because they have not been produced in accord with the notice and are presently subject to exclusion for failure to appear. If scheduling of experts is not possible those experts should be precluded from testifying; therefore, experts must be advised that they must be prepared to testify on any assigned date between now and trial including weekends unless there is very good cause which must be set forth in writing prior to the hearing. Counsel and the experts should be prepared to attend depositions by video conference or other remote electronic means so that travel time will not be an issue. Counsel may agree to multiple track depositions of any number and must be prepared to cover a deposition whenever set by the court. Each expert deposition will be limited to 7 hours. Defendants should take the depositions of plaintiffs' experts on November 19-23. Plaintiffs should take the depostions of defendant's experts on November 25-27, 29-30. Each side should specify the order in which the opposing party's experts are to be deposed prior to the hearing. Any other depositions set at the times for experts will procede concurrently.

Molalla Holdings v. O'Leary 169084 [11/19hrg] - granted, limited to $300

Levine v. Goulette 308300 [11/19hrg] - terminating sanctions and $1073 monetary sanctions granted for failure to comply with court order and discovery obligations, it appearing that no lesser sanctions will suffice and that lesser sanctions have previously been imposed without obtaining compliance by plaintiff with the discovery rules.

Lazo v. Ebalo 413856 [11/19hrg] - Off calendar. No papers in court file or otherwise presented to court.

Hilton Hotels v. Stafford 406444 [11/19hrg] - Attachment Granted in the amount requested. Exhibit A to defendant's declaration is not attached. Please provide copy by fax or email.

Guest Informant v. Pasule Ianetti Art 322642 [11/19hrg] - granted.

Aguilar & Sebastinelli v. 1700 Calif St 408828 [11/19hrg] - granted. Counsel must discuss each issue prior to the hearing.

Weissberg v. Peinaddo 404836 [11/19hrg] - It appears that defendant has deposed plaintiff and obtained what personal information he is able to provide. Counsel should discuss a practical solution to the discovery issues in view of the circumstances of the plaintiff.

McDaniel v. Karren 407456 [11/20hrg] - granted. No opposition received.

Mostaghim v. Yellow Cab 403278 [11/20 hrg] - granted re both motions.

Sommers v. Towney 269774 [11/20hrg] - Further respond to all subject interrogatories and all document reqests except 16. Documents need not be created to comply with the docuement requests. Granted re monetary sanctions. No opposition has been received to this motion.

Richater v. Hammelev 403416 [11/20hrg] - no moving papers or file available for review. Opposition received.

Kloss v. CCSF 320976 [11/20hrg] - granted re cell phone records. No or late objections waived.Further respond in accord with CCP2031(f). It appears that the city will provide a consent to subpoena phone records. All statements should be produced.

Carlson v. Johnson 321112 [11/21hrg] - No oppoosition or reply. Please advise the court if these motions are still on calendar.

Bridgeport Financial v. Strong 407112 [11/21hrg] - granted limited to $300

Bridgeport v. Cullen 410554 [11/21] - Off calendar. This matter was not calendared in the discovery law and motion department and was improperly noticed for Dept. 612. It is apparently based on action taken in another department and should be recalendared in that department.

Bridgeport Financial v. Lynam 410382 [11/21hrg] - Off calendar. This matter was not calendared in the discovery law and motion department and was improperly noticed for Dept. 612. It is apparently based on action taken in another department and should be recalendared in that department.

Guest Informant v. Pasuale Ianetti Art 322642 [11/21hrg] - Off calendar.
No papers or court file are available for review. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Economy Restaurant v. Sitio Ent 413160 [11/21hrg] - Off calendar. No papers or court file are available for review. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Starelli v. Raybestos 313942 [11/21hrg] - granted.

Jekic v. GKO Assoc 410266 [11/21hrg] - GRANTED
No opposition papers or court file are available for review. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Yung v. Kashikar 401176 [11/21hrg] - - granted; sanctions denied

WARREN V. REGENTS 400150 {11/22hrg] - granted.

Lazo v. Ebalo 413856 [11/22hrg] - Off calendar. No papers or court file available for review.

Jones v. Buchanan Dental Center 308356 [11/22hrg] - Denied. Discovery closes based on the initial trial date and has not been reopened. In addition, interrogatories cannot be served on non-parties.

Cardoso v. Yermus 404874 [11/22hrg] - Objections should only be asserted when required and permitted. See the Stewart case. Assuming defendant has not completed its deposition, Counsel should resume and complete the deposition with the aid of either a video camera or refereee if necessary. For this deposition, a certified videographer is not required and the cameras can be operated by any competent person. Both could have their camera or cameras set up to record both the testimony and the comments by counsel. A referee fee should be split if counsel select that course.
If counsel are unable to resolve issues regarding the resumption and completion of the deposition, each lawyer must serve upon the other by fax no later than 5:00 PM a list of rules of conduct to which it wants the other side to coply. If either lawyer objects to any such rules they must promptly notify opposing counsel by fax or telephone. Counsel are to personally discuss any issues as to those rules prior to any hearing.

Gorosh v. Bessemer Trust 401907 [11/22hrg] -
The motion is entitled a motion to compel production of documents but seems to be based on CCP2025 and on CCP2031. One separate statement is based on the Fourth Set of Requests for Production and the other on a Notice of Deposition of a party or its employees etc. Response was made to the Third request for documents in August and the time to move on those requests would have expired after 45 days. The bar on motions after 45 days would prevent a motion unless there were a written agreement to extend the time to move and could not be circumvented by renewal of the request for substantially similar documents in the Fourth set. Of course the courts have permitted a circumvention of this rule by using the deposition alternative. The Fourth Set was served personally on 10/11/02 and the current motion was filed ll/1/02 prior to the due date for responses and, assuming the responses were not served early, prior to any opportunity to meet and confer on those responses. A separate statement has been filed on the Fourth Set which suggests responses were served early; but the memorandum suggest that response to the Request are still not due. Defendants raise objections based on a CCP 2031 request as to responses not yet due and a failure to meet and confer. These objections appear to be valid as to the Fourth Request. Even though plaintiff’s cynicism may be well founded and valid and even though the meet and confer process should not be used as a device to frustrate discovery, the statutory obligations should not be disregarded even when discovery is served at the last minute.
It appears that the deposition was noticed of named employees, officers etc. of defendant. No timely objection was made that it was improper to notice production of corporate documents. A subpoena of a third party is not involved and the deponent is deposed as an employee etc. by notice served on counsel. This is not a case where jurisdiction over an officer of a corporation was obtained by personal subpoena on the individual when the court lacked jurisdiction or otherwise could not compel a corporation to produce. However, it is also not a PMK deposition of the corporation. The statute is silent on this issue but defendant only requests a good faith effort to comply. At a minimum, the employee should produce those documents within its possession, custody or control as an employee acting in that capacity on behalf of the corporation i.e. those documents which the corporation entrusts or to which it allows full access by the employee. Defendant's objection to employee production of any corporate documents at deposition is overuled.
It appears undisputed that Mr. Montaigne’s deposition was not properly noticed in that 7 or 6 days was given and proper objection was raised. It appears undisputed that the objection was waived as to the production of the witness but not as to production of any documents. It also appears that there was no examination as to the existence of documents or any meet and confer as to production. Based on the foregoing undisputed facts the motion is denied as to the production of documents by Mr. Montaigne.
It is unclear but appears to be the case that document production by Cavadas, Ensheimer, Ausperger and MacDonald are properly before the court. Defendant has objected to reopening such depositions but it is not clear what the nature of this objection may be or what the factual basis for it may be. Were the depositions previously taken and concluded. If so, a second deposition would not be proper and the motion should be denied on that basis. Assuming this is merely an issue of a properly noticed depositin where the deponents objected to producing documents on bases that need to be resolved by the court at this time, Counsel are required to meet and confer as to the documents still in issue and if possible advise the court in advance by email.

Bank of America v. Schultz 405914 [11/25hrg] - granted.

Citibank v. Lin 409392 [11/25hrg] - both motions granted.

First Commercial v. Bryant 404090 [11/25hrg] - granted

Fox-Warfield v. Allison 602858 [11/25hrg] - It appears that the initial answers were inadequate but that supplemental answers have been served. They need to be discussed by the parties and if issues are not resolved the matter renoticed for hearing with a revised separate statement including and limited to the answers and supplemental answers of the the questions remaining in dispute. To the extent the original answers were insufficient, there was a good faith meet and confer, and those problems were not resolved prior to filing the motion, the moving party may be entitled to compensation on this motion. A stipulation to that effect would be preferable or the court can consider the prior motion should the matter return for hearing on the supplemental answers. I would not seem to be productive to have a hearing solely on the issue of sanctions at this time.

Jackson v. NHP 412662 [11/25hrg] - granted.

Williams-Sonoma v. Restoration Hardware 403080 [11/25hrg - Defendant stipulated to the relevance and discovery of email from backup tapes. The motion for such discovery is granted on condition that plaintiff pay for such extraordinary discovery and that the protective order and procedures for review and assertion of privilege proposed by defendant be adopted. The appointment of Kroll as a neutral appears to be acceptable to both counsel.
Economy Restaurant v. Pegazus Rest. 413164 [11/26hrg] - granted.

Hammerman v. Maccarra 400374 [11/26hrg] - No papers or court file are available for review. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Treviicos v. Turner 400212 [11/26hrg] - No papers or court file are available for review. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Marquez v. Hilton 401804 [11/26hrg] - No papers or court file are available for review. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Crisss v. Asbestos 401032 [11/26hrg] - The Register of Actions shows that some party has filed an objection to the commissioner hearing the matter as a Temporary Judge. In order to determine who rules on this matter, the moving party shall determine what parties have objected to a commissioner hearing discovery as a Temporary Judge, whether they are still parties to this action, and whether they are “parties litigant” to the pending motion. That information must be presented in writing when the case is called for hearing.

Abma v. American Asbestos 311974 [11/26hrg] - The Register of Actions shows that some party has filed an objection to the commissioner hearing the matter as a Temporary Judge. In order to determine who rules on this matter, the moving party shall determine what parties have objected to a commissioner hearing discovery as a Temporary Judge, whether they are still parties to this action, and whether they are “parties litigant” to the pending motion. That information must be presented in writing when the case is called for hearing.

Molalla holdings v. Mitchell 182738 [11/27hrg] - granted limited to $300

Kaur v. Hanan 315436 [11/27hrg] - Matters must be calendared in advance with the department by calling 551 3688. Motion granted. No opposition received.

Sandy v. Asbestos 324212 [11/27hrg] - Commissioner Best recused due to financial interest in Exxon Mobile. Transferred to Dept 612. Call 551 3688 to determine if matter will be heard 11/27 or must be continued.

Green v. TIG Ins 321042 [late for 11/27hrg] - motion for relief is denied and the motion for order compelling production is granted both on the lack of timely onbjections and on the merits. Defendant has not supplied facts establishing a privilege as to any particular document nor does it appear under the accepted facts that a privilege could be established. The response is not in accord with 2031(g) re identification of particular documents to which a particular objections is made.

Gorosh v. Bessemer 401906 [11/27hrg] - It is not clear and defendant should identify on which subjects Cox and Zack will testify that the prior experts are not qualified to do so. Are the initially disclosed experts not competent to testify on damage computations, lost opportunities, and duties re diversification and hedging. It appears that the initially disclosed experts were designated to testify on those subjects. The terms hedging and diversification have been mentioned in every hearing and seem to be a primary issue.

OCTOBER
Fund Recovery v. Tank Protectr Engineering 403680 [10/1hrg] - granted

Discount Plumbing v. Pac Bell 404844 [10/1hrg] - Counsel should notify the court if this matter is still on calendar. No opposition or reply received. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Sandhu v. Eastopen 404684 [10/1hrg] - Counsel should provide a proof of service for the OSC

Grasi v. Collins 402356 [10/1hrg] - Counsel should advise the court if this matter is still on calendar. No papers or court file are available for review. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Citizen v. Kirby 407754 [10/1hrg] - Counsel should advise the court if this matter is still on calendar. No papers or court file are available for review. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Gorosh v. Bessemer 401907 [10/1hrg] - Counsel should advise the court if this matter is still on calendar. No papers or court file are available for review. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Ingram v. Fong 315068 [10/1hrg] - It appears that defendants have now been served and that there is no relevance or need for the home addresses of defendants or the telephone records of Farmers. therefore the motion is denied.

American International Specialty v. Coca Cola 320748 [10/1hrg] - Late advisory ruling. 3:15 pm
Defendant has not met its burden of proof on the privilege issue by providing facts to support its claim of privilege as to any document or question. Any argument in the brief is not evidence. Therefore the claim of privilege should be overruled.
"Furthering the interest of the client" may justify the presence of a 3rd party to a privileged conversation between attorney and client but it is not a concept that allows expansion of the privilege to cover communications between that 3rd party and the lawyer, outside of the presence of the client. There is no evidence to support the claim that AON is the client or an employee that would qualify as the client under Chadbourne and its progeny. A client cannot make disclosures to some third party and then claim that the third party's discussion with the client's lawyer would become privileged. It is the communication between attorney and client that is privileged. CCE/BCI communications with its coverage counsel may be privileged but AON's communications with another entity's attorney is not.
The federal litigation or joint defense privilege is not recognized in California law. See Raytheon v. Superior Court (1989), 208 Cal.App.3d 683
Although a viable theory and its factual basis might be advanced to cloak communications between AON and CCE's coverage counsel with the attorney client privilege held by CCE, those facts have not been provided and that theory under California law has not been advanced.

Berkeley Farms v. Blue Coast 410746 [10/2hrg] - granted.

Lagrone v. Webcor Builders 401286 [10/2hrg] - A special rule exits for the telephone company that appears to require a motion for records unless plaintiff voluntarily signs a release. No procedure to request a release was established by the legislature. CCP2023(b) only authorizes sanctions "to the extent authorized by...any other provision of this article." No section or other authority authorizing sanctions for this motion has been cited.CCP2025 applies to depositions of a party which is not this motion. In addition, plaintiff's counsel withdrew shortly before trial and plaintiff is left to represent herself in a somewhat confusing area of procedure.
The motion is granted and the telephone company is ordered to produce the requested records and plaintiff is ordered to execute the suthorization. If plaintiff does not, the clerk of the court is authorized to execute an authorization.
For the above reason monetary sanctions are denied.

Kathryn Frances Mather Trust 283264 [10/2] - It does not appear that any discovery has been initiated against or refused by Adult Protective Services or that any objection has been made to the production of specific documents or to any questions or that any privilege has been asserted. Presumably the City Attorney represents Adult Protective Service but no service has been made on the City Attorney or any other legal counsel. To the extent the motion seeks to compel court testimony it is not a discovery issue as such and the appropriate motion for court testimony should be presented to the probate court. To the extent this motion seeks to compel discovery, it is denied without prejudice to renewal if some entity declines to comply with a discovery obligation.

National Collection v. Edqards 76946 [10/2hrg] - no file or court papers available. Please provide complimentary copies.

Fox v. Fox 32448 [10/2hrg] - Off calendar. No papers or court file are available for review except for a motion to quash a subpoena that is devoid of any facts or legal authority and does not include a copy of the subpoena or proof of service. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Ratcliff v. 21st Century 322190 [10/2hrg] - Off calendar. No papers or court file are available for review. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Arroyo & Coates v. 2712 Mission 403728 [10/2hrg] - granted. $198,000 admitted. $10,000 bond.

International Marine Fuels v. Silverstar Coach 324196 [10/3hrg] - No opposition or proof of service received. Absent opposition and conditioned upon presentation by fax or in person of a proof of servvice, the motion for terminating sanctions will be granted. amended It appears that opposition has been filed to this motion and that a hearing would be required under the prior tentative order. Mr.Fettner has advised that he cannot appear for the scheduled hearing. Therefore the motion must be continued for hearing if necessary upon review of the opposition. Counsel should continue the hearing to a mutually agreeable time and date that is available on the court's calendar. If agreement cannot be reached it may be continued to a date available on the court calendar on 7 court days' notice by fax or personal delivery.

Morrow v. Harrington 318564 [10/3hrg] - No opposition received.

Low v. APGREEN 310856 [10/3hrg] - granted.

RODRIGUEZ V. RAYBESTOS 401889 [10/3hrg] - This matter was continued one day by counsel to a day which was overcalendared and there is no time to review this matter as requested by counsel. The matter must be continued to a day when there will be adequate time for review.

Mendez v. Valle 321410 [10/3hrg] - Granted. It appears that the documents requested are relevant and that the objections should be overruled. It appears defendant has tendered the issue of financial ability and document directly relevant to that ability are discoverable over a claim of privacy. Defendant failed to comply with CCP2031 and identify the documents it is withholding. It then faults plaintiff for not identifying the documents it seeks. Defendant asserts a trade secret objection but it is unclear what trade secret is involved and defendant has not addressed this issue in its papers. Defendatn should further respond in accord with the CCP. Prior to the hearing counsel must meet and confer and agree on the specific documents that are the subject of this motion. If any evidentiary or factual disputes surrounding them exist the motion should be continued for counsel to privide declarations as to such issues. To the extent counsel can agree on the specific documents at issue and the facts related thereto, the motion is in a condition upon which a ruling can be based. If counsel cannot present the documents and issues to the court in that fashion, defendat should further respond in accord with the CCP and reimburse plaintiff for all expenses incurred to date on this motion. The matter can then be renoticed with the issues framed.

Morrow v. Harrington 318564 [10/3hrg] - granted. No opposition received.

Yung v. Kashikar 401176 [10/3hrg] - granted.

Ouma v. Econo 324456 [10/3hrg] - no file or papers available for review.

No hearings in dept 610 10/3-10/7 - No advisory rulings for 10/8/02

Flores v. Lam 405918 [10/9hrg] - granted.

Flores v. Lam 405918 [10/9hrg] - granted. No opposition.

Braley v. Georgopoulos et al 319790 [10/9hrg] - granted.

Balllard v. Ogiso 322062 [10/9hrg] - granted.

Smith v. Knoller 319532 [10/9hrg] - A peremptory challenge per 170.6 and Commissioner Best is precluded from hearing this motion. CCP 170.6 precludes a judge from hearing "any matter therein". The court was reversed in Deauville Restaurant, Inc. v. Superior Court 90 Cal.App.4th 843 when it rejected a peremtory challenge on a renewed motion. The court quoted with approval the language in Ziller:
The court also stated the "same judge" requirement in section 1008 did not preclude reconsideration because the original judge was unavailable to hear the second motion. In explaining the application of the "unavailability exception" to the "same judge" requirement, the Ziller court wrote: "An established exception to the general rule limiting reconsideration is that where the judge who made the initial ruling is unavailable to reconsider the motion, a different judge may entertain the reconsideration motion. [Citation.] This exception reconciles the jurisdiction of a trial court to reconsider and correct its erroneous interim rulings to achieve justice [citation] with the general rule's recognition of the comity between judges of a trial court. The proper procedure upon a motion for reconsideration or a renewed motion is for the second judge to direct the moving party to the judge who ruled on the first motion. If the original judge is unavailable, as in this case, the second judge may hear the reconsideration motion

Richter v. Hammelev 403416 [10/9hrg] - granted.

Rodriguez v. SF Muni Ry 312220 [10/9hrg] - It appears that the trial date was continued and expert disclosure date extended and that subsequently the trial was again continued but the issue of expert disclosure referred to this department. The prior expert disclosure date is vacated and a new expert disclosure date is set per CCP 2034 based on the new trial date.

Shure v. Shu 404842 [10/9hrg] - granted as to all interrogatories. Sanctions denied on the assumption no hearing is required. In the event either side requests a hearing, counsel must meet and confer on each disputed item of each disputed interrogatory prior to any hearing.

Gorosh v. Bessemer Trust 401907 [10/9hrg] - This motion involves an inability of counsel to agree on a depositon. It does not appear to involve any legal issues as reflected in the authorities cited and the facts set forth. The statutory procedure is to notice depositions and make a motion only if there is a failure to show. A party has no legal right to refuse to comply with a proper notice and must make a motion for a protective order with an adequate showing to prevent it. No such showing has been made in opposition. The statutory procedure usually avoids unnecessary motions since the motion is usually not made or pursued unless there is a showing of good cause to be made. Such motions are rare. This motion is based on a refusal of counsel to agree but will be treated as one in proper form since both counsel have now briefed the matter.
The motion is granted and the deposition shall resume pursuant to proper notice. No hearing will be held on this matter.
If counsel anticipate other disputes of this nature, it may be desireable to retain a discovery referee to handle such matters in an expedited manner so that there is no problem scheduling and completing discovery by the discovery cutoff date.

Morrow v. Harrington 318564 [10/9hrg] - see prior tentative

Mendez v. Valle 321410 [10/9 hrg] - - Granted. It appears that the documents requested are relevant and that the objections should be overruled. It appears defendant has tendered the issue of financial ability and document directly relevant to that ability are discoverable over a claim of privacy. Defendant failed to comply with CCP2031 and identify the documents it is withholding. It then faults plaintiff for not identifying the documents it seeks. Defendant asserts a trade secret objection but it is unclear what trade secret is involved and defendant has not addressed this issue in its papers. Defendatn should further respond in accord with the CCP. Prior to the hearing counsel must meet and confer and agree on the specific documents that are the subject of this motion. If any evidentiary or factual disputes surrounding them exist the motion should be continued for counsel to privide declarations as to such issues. To the extent counsel can agree on the specific documents at issue and the facts related thereto, the motion is in a condition upon which a ruling can be based. If counsel cannot present the documents and issues to the court in that fashion, defendat should further respond in accord with the CCP and reimburse plaintiff for all expenses incurred to date on this motion. The matter can then be renoticed with the issues framed.

Morrow v. Harrington 318564 [10/10hrg] - Off calendar. No papers are available for review. This matter was not calendared in the Discovey Department. It further appears from the calendar description that this motion was actually heard on 10/9/02.

Barger v. Andonian 403566 [10/10hrg] - Counsel should advise the court if this matter is still on calendar. No papers or court file except for the reply are available for review. To the extent the reply presents the issue, it appears to be a correct interpretation of the statute. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

CCSF v. Clark 56528 [10/10hrg] - granted.

Chan v. Henley 603516 [10/10hrg] - granted

Anselmo v. Chamberlain 602060 [10/10hrg] - granted.

Fechheimer v. Koch 400475 [10/10hrg] - It appears from the transcript that Judge Sing intended to permit the deposition; the motion to compel is granted but sanctions are denied.

Fund v. Space 402830 [10/10hrg] - Off Calendar. No papers or court file are available for review. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Postel v. Asbestos 322334 [10/10hrg] - Off Calendar. No papers or court file are available for review. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Preferred Bank v. CM/Federal 408054 [10/10hrg] - attachment granted for reduced principle amount of $1,790,452.06

Primus v. Primus 404132 [10/11hrg] - granted.

Barlettani v. Asbestos 314112 [10/11hrg] - granted.

Good Nite Inn v. Inn Room Video 403458 [10/11hrg] - No papers or court file available for review. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Mendez v.. Valle 321410 [10/11hrg] -
Second deposition denied.
The motion for further answers to supplemental interrogatory are granted as to all interrogatories. CCP2030(f)(2)is in appropriate to these interrogatories and the resonse in that form was not properly made.. The supplmental response must be made with regard to each interrogatory and not to a group. The non-responsive qualifications that precede the responses are sticken as being non-reponsive and inappropriate. All prior responses to the supplemental interrogatory are stricken and Plaintiff must serve new and separate responses by October 17,2002.
Defendant's motion for monetary sanctions is granted and the amount requested appears to be a reasonable amount based on the amount of work required to prepare and present the motion.
Counsel are encouraged to meet and confer to focus last minute discovery on the most essential items in order to obtain full and complete answers to the most important discovery and to avoid "make work" on the eve of trial.

Williams Sonoma v. Restoration Hardware 403080 [10/10hrg] - Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Danilo'r Inc. v/ Couture European 404316 [10/15hrg - granted.

Mikheyev v. Kulberg 325116 [10/15hrg] - see prior tentative; please advise court if this matter is still on calendar. If so counsel should formulate the issue to be presented to the court.

Low v. Raybestos [10/15hrg] - see prior tentative ruling. Please advise if this matter is still on calendar.

Conley v. Roman Catholic - No papers or court file are available for review. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Intn'tl Marine Fuels v. Silverstar Coach 324196 [10/15hrg] - No papers or court file are available for review. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Hering v. Jefferies 319018 [10/15hrg] - Defendant's sole opposition is that the motion is untimely. A party has a right to hearing until the motion cutoff. Thereafter, it is discretionary. Defendant's motion was heard 2 court days earlier and after the 15 day cutoff. There being no opposition on the merits and no showing to overcome the Constitutional Right to Privacy, plaintiff's motion is granted. Should defendant seek any modification in the requested relief, defendant must meet and confer on any good faith proposal submitted to plaintiff prior to any hearing.

Vogan v. Young 300778 [10/15hrg] - Oppositon has not been received. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY It appears that it was agreed at the deposition to provide the requested information. Such information should be supplied or an explanation supplied under oath for the failure to provide the information. The alternative of reconvening the deposition in order to elicit the information would appear to be an unnecessary expense that counsel and the parties can avoid. Counsel must meet and confer to resolve this issue prior to the hearing.

O'Connor v. Rathel 409364 [10/15hrg] - granted re compelling responses, including objections of substance and significance that are appropriate to the specific discovery, with such responses to be provided by 10/21/02. Both requests for sanctions are denied. No hearing is required for this motion.

Conley v. Roman Catholic 300008 [10/15] - granted on the assumption there is no opposition or objection.

Sakai v. Sakai 40814 [10/16hrg] - No papers or court file are available for review. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Powell v. Reed 602998 [10/16hrg] - Off calendar. No papers or court file are available for review.Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Greenwood Trust v. Horn 157110 [10/16hrg] - No papers or court file are available for review. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Ultramar v. Avis 411530[10/16hrg] - attachment granted.

Chaisson v. Amerindo Investment 411346 [10/16hrg] - granted. In the factual context of this case, the arbitration award may be rendered ineffectual without the attachment. Davenport case involved injuunctive relief. The purpose of attachment is to convert an unsecured claim to a secured claim. It appears that defendant may not be able to promptly respond to arbitration award. Defendant may post a bond if it has the ability to do so to stay any further action on the attachment.

Fund recovery v. Satyricon 402830 [10/22hrg] - granted

Bank if Orient v. Lau 412528 [10/22hrg] - There is no proof of service in the file. Attachment is granted on condition that a proof of service is presented at the hearing. Based on the declaration submitted the attachment is limited to $61,593.81 plus $5,000 costs. The balance of the amount requested is not supported. The declaration does not support the attorney's fee request and there is no memorandum pointing out where the agreement may exist for attorneys fees.

Atel Ventures v. Silicon Access Networks 413556 [10/22hrg] - granted.

Ayle v. Kaiser 404360 10/22hrg] - Off calendar No papers or court file are available for review. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Gilchrist v. Regents 323378 [10/22hrg] - To the extent responses by way of answers or objections have been filed, this is a motion for further responses and rquires a separate statement as well as a good faith effort to resolve the issues posed by the requests and responses. It does not appear that either have been provided or occurred. For those reasons, this motion is denied without prejudice to a renewal within 45 days after compliance with both the meet and confer requirement and the separate statement requirement. However, it appears that there has been no response to the form interrogatories and that the motion can be granted as to them; however, sanctions are denied becasue of the injustice that would occur expecially since an extension of time to move was offered. Although no ruling is made on the validity of the objections there does not appear to be much merit to them. Counsel must meet and confer to avoid a needless motion on any objections imposed without a good faith belief in the merit. Such objections could result in monetary or other sanctions being imposed against counsel and the client and the court retains jurisdiction to award sanctions against counsel imposing the objections if done without merit.
It does not appear that this matter warrants a hearing at this time.

sherwood partners v. 250 llc 401396 [10/22hrg] - It appears that there are no documents in categories 16, 19, & 20 which would be sufficient if stated under oath. If documents exist, they should be identified and an appropriate objection made to any withheld. The motion is granted as to those categories to the extent of requiring a response in accord with CCP2031(g). Category 13 does not appear to be relevant and is denied. Counsel must meet and confer and serve a further response to first determine if a document exists in the categories and if its production is objected to on what grounds. The hearing if any on #13 should be deferred until the issues are clarified on the other categories. No hearing need be held at this time.

Cheng v. Cheng 321868 [10/22hrg] - It appears that this matter may require an inordinant amount of court time to resolve and that the matter is set for trial in approximately one month. Therefore, it appears that the motion should be refered to a referee pursuant to CCP638 [with the consent of the parties] or 639 in order for the discovery to be resolved prior to trial. Counsel should confer on the person to serve as referee prior to the hearing.

American International Coca Cola 320748 [10/22hrg] - Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Bergeron v. Lee 324344 [10/23hrg] - granted. Sanctions denied. No hearing required.

Huang v. Dudum 406296 [10/23hrg] - granted.

Thelen Reid v. Anchormed Corp 406430 [10/23hrg] - granted. Further answer form interrogatories and provide a verified response to the document request and any further responsive documents. The matters will be deemed admitted unles proper responses to the admissions are served prior to the hearing. The three requests for monetary sanctions are granted.

Chu v. Gee Poy Kuo Assoc 406190 [10/23hrg] - Denied. It does not appear that plaintiff is seeking recovery for any monetary losses other than those resulting from loss of employment. Due to the financial privacy issues and seeming lack of relevance, defendant should identify specific damage claims to which financial inquiries would relate before pursuing this discovery.

Currier v. Currier 43500 [10/23hrg] - To the extent this motion seeks to recover possession of personal property it should be addressed to the Family Law Department in that it is not a motion involving pretrial discovery. Denied without prejudice to renewal within 45 days. There is no separate statement required by CRC Rule 335 if appropriate to the motion. There is no declaration providing facts to support a motion regarding the service and responses to formal discovery and no proof of service of the discovery that is the subject of the motion or of the motion itself. There is no declaration showing that the parties have met and conferred over any disputed discovery. Most of the motion seems to involve the completion of forms relating to family law matters and does not involve discovery requests or responses. To the extent this motion seeks to compel responses to form interrogatories that have been served on the opposing party and to which no responses have been provided, that part of the motion will be granted upon presentation at the hearing of a proof of service of this motion and of the form interrogatories. The papers submitted show the motion was filed before any answers were due and should be denied without prejudice to refiling a motion if necessary after the responses are due.

Plitz v. Raybestos 322574 [10/24hrg] - Any hearing will be held at 10:30. objection filed to commissioner hearing matter; no tentative

Nelson v. Asbestos 312252 [10/24hrg] - No papers or court file are available for review. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY; objection to commissioner filed; No tentative

Shaffer v. Raybestos 306720 [10/24hrg] - No tentative; objection to commissioner filed

Hammerman v. Mark J. Maccara Builders 400374 [10/24hrg] - No papers are available for review. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Ouma v. Econo Lodge 324456 [10/24hrg] - granted.

Andrist v. Applegate 312858 [10/24hrg] - Counsel should advise the court if this continued matter is still on calendar for hearing.

Grisham v. Wal-Mart 402238 [10/24hrg] - It is not clear whether the trial is currently set for December or April.
Counsel should discuss a possible on-site discovery protocol for electronic documents which would be directed to sources other than the backup tapes. See http://californiadiscovery.findlaw.com/El_Disco.htm#ON-SITE regarding possible parameters and procedures.
Additional material may follow.
What alternative sources of electronic information can be exploited, such as hard drives of key personnel such as the plaintiff's supervisor or HR, prior to accessing any backup tapes? If backup tapes are the subject of discovery, what is the cost and any problem with first copying the tapes?
If backup tapes are the subject of discovery, what type of sampling and at what expense might be employed?
Counsel should consider permitting Mr.Epstein or some other independent expert to function in the same capacity and under the same protections and protocols as Ms. Feldman in the mySimon case and to do so on a "sampling" basis to determine the feasibility of pursuing this discovery. The sampling would be done initially at plaintiff's expense subject to further order of court allocating expenses.

Dickerman v. Asbestos 300726 [10/25hrg] - Objection filed to commissioner heraring matters; No tentative ruling; counsel must submit a list of parties who have filed such objections in this action prior to the hearing

DeKraai v. Asbestos 319682 [10/25hrg] - objection to commissioner filed; no tentative ruling; counsel must submit a list of parties who have filed such objections in this action prior to the hearing

Goodnite Inn Redwood City v. Inn Room Video [10/25hrg] - No papers or court file are available for review. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Gosain v. Rubin 311736 [10/25hrg] - The motion was proper and entitled to be granted at the time it was made and the motion speaks as of that date though heard at the time set for hearing. Therefore, the motion is granted but sanctions are limited to $800 since no reply of appearance is necessary and since the discovery has been or will be provided. No hearing is required.

Fechheimer v. Koch 400475 [10/25hrg] - granted

Huyng v. Merchant 602792 [10/28hrg] - Defendant's motion to compel depositions of Plaintiffs is granted on condition that it not delay the trial. Such depostions shall commence at 10:00 am on 10/28. Any deposition shall adjourn if the matter is sent out for trial and shall thereafter be subject to any order of the trial court.

United Meat v. Little City 412546 [10/28hrg] - granted. no order received.

Merritt v. Safeway 407648 [1028hrg] - granted.

Housing Group v. United National 324134 [10/28hrg] - Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY However,papers have been located
This matter has been continued in the past. Counsel should advise if the motion is still on calendar for hearing.

City and Co v. Boyd 402452 [10/28] - CC3295 does not seem to distinguish between corporations and individuals on the showing to be made for pretrial financial matters and Kardon and Coy preceded the current statute. Kardon suggest that penalty cases be treated the same as other exemplary dgs cases. Thus, it appears that CC3295 procedural and substantive provision must be met before financial discovery for exemplary or penalty damages can occur.

Bragg v. Boyd 408934 [10/29hrg] - GRANTED.

Smith v. Matson Navig 402632 [10/29hrg] - counsel should advise the court if this matter is still on calendar in that it appears that all issues are moot at this time.

Reudy v. Clearchannel Outdoors 403074 [10/29] - If convenient to both counsel, counsel should appear at 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as convenient for the hearing.
Prior to the hearing, Counsel must discuss each remaining issue on each disputed discovery item and attempt to focus the hearing on the key issues that need be resolved. Defendant has not timely sought a protective order and has not properly responded to discovery.
Plaintiff's motion for futher responses to document requests and for sanctions must be granted in that the responses are not in compliance with the requirements of CCP2031(g). See Practice Points on the web site on this issue. No protective order was sought. No objections to particular documents have been made and the identity of withheld documents, if any, has not been provided. The inadequate response prevents plaintiff from providing a meaninful separate statement on which the court can rule on the issues.

The motion to compel further answers to form interrogatory and for monetary sanctions is granted. Defendant has not responded to the threshold querry of identifying issues and has not responded as to each in the particulars required.

Plaintiff's motion for an order compelling further answers to special interrogatories and for monetary sanctions is granted as to all.



Peletz v. Zamudio 603580 [10/29hrg] - granted.

989 Market Assoc. v. JPKids 413304 [10/29hrg] - No papers available for review. See suggested complimentary copy procedure on the web page. http://californiadiscovery.findlaw.com/index.htm

Dolan v. Stacy & Witbeck 317850 [10/30hrg] - matters not deemed admitted but mandatory sanctions granted; responses in accord with 2031(g)are required and document production is required; motion was appropriate when made and should be granted based on responses at that time. The requested sanctions are reasonable and granted in the amount requested.

Barger v. Andonian 403566 [10/30hrg] - Responses must be in full compliance with CCP2031(g)in all particulars as clearly set forth in that section. Absent such compliance, further responses and monetary sanctions will be granted. See Practice Point on this subject on the web page.

Jarvis v. Royal Numico 403532 [10/30hrg] - The objective of the motion may have been achieved at least temporarily without the necessity of a hearing and order. It appears that this matter is at least temporarily moot, that time of both sides might be better expended on other matters, and that a hearing at this time may be academic or inconclusive. In the event the issue is not resolved by counsel, the motion may be renoticed based on the prior papers if appropriate and served on shortened time in order to be heard and determined prior to the date of any deposition.

Cheng v. Cheng 321868 [10/30hrg] - If convenient to both counsel, the hearing can commence at 10:00 or earlier.

Haworth v. Wollborg 406598 [10/30hrg] - general objections should be stricken. Counsel should discuss each issue on each disputed discovery item prior to the hearing and should focus on major issues to be resolved in the order of priority.

Michael v. Ischander 39964 [10/31hrg] - granted.

Beckett v. Prudential 407032 [10/31hrg] - It appears that the requested documents are relevant and not privileged and should be produced. A brief protective order appears to have been agreed upon and it appears that a reasonable time limit has been agreed by plaintiff.

Costenbader v. Jersey Constructors 411784 [10/31hrg] - attachment denied. This is not a claim upon which an attachment may issue pursuant to CCP 484.090. The claim is not based on a contract where the amount is a fixed or readily ascertainable amount and is not a claim upon which an attachment can be issued; in addition, plaintiff has not established the probable validity. It appears that plaintiff has previously obtained an order from the court for an accounting.

Gonzales v. Hilton 404734 [10/31hrg] - granted. No opposition.

Shah v. Gale 318438 [10/31hrg] - The discovery propounded is appropriate discovery and the motion is granted regarding further responses. Monetary sanctions will be limited to $800 on the assumption that no hearing will be required.

SEPTEMBER

Reshko v. Lee 4063108 [9/3hrg]- denied. It does not appear that notice was given to the DA or the Coroner or that a subpoena has been issue.

National Collection v. Rosmarin 406513 9/3hrg - granted, sanctions limited to $923

Nudleman v. Kyprose 323474 9/3hrg - granted.

Arno v. Chersterton - granted

Bernstein v. Mackarness 323076 [9/3hrg] - Counsel must discuss each issue and assure that the discovery has been provided to avoid a continuance or the removal of this matter from the trial calendar or evidentiary sanctions such as that all funds not accounted be chaged against the party failing to account. Each issue to be raised at the hearing must be discussed prior to the hearing.

Groesler v. Ackermann 316242 9/3hrg - Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY It appears that tax return privilege would apply and the motion is otherwise moot. Counsel must discuss each disputed issure prior to the hearing.

van Gelder v. Mrtinez 322234 9/3hrg - It appears defendant agreed to produce documents and iformation at the deposition and should do so forthwith. A declaration of search and lack of documents should be provided for any not produced.

Rahmani v. Asbestos Corp 318926 [9/4hrg] - Off calendar due to failure to calendar with the department. See SF Local Rule 8.14 and call 415 551-3688 between 9:00 a.m. and noon to calendar this motion

Ekberg v. Raybestos 313762 [9/4hrg] - granted.

O'Neill v. Plant Bros. 324014 [9/4hrg] - granted.

Bolden v. SF Police Dept. 323562 [9/4hrg] - granted.

Drissell v. Longo 603280 [9/4hrg] - granted.

Nelson v. Asbestos 312252 [9/4hrg] - Plaintiff's motion to compel has been taken off calendar and it is assumed that defendant's motion will not be heard since it appears related and perhaps dependent upon that motion. Counsel should advise the court if the motion for a protective order is still on calendar. No opposition or reply is available for review by the court. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Warren v. Regents 400150 [9/4hrg] - Plaintiff should appear for deposition though sanctions should be denied based on the overall facts indicating it would be unjust under these circumstances. A hearing may be required on the minor's deposition. It is not clear how important it is though the minor would have some facts to reveal. Presumably, plaintiff will agree the minor will not be a witness and defendant would agree to a protective order as to any transcript. Counsel should discuss this matter prior to the hearing in order to accommodate the needs of the other.

Briscoe v. Martinez 403444 [9/4hrg] - denied. Plaintiff has not established that there is a substantial probability that plaintiff will recover punitive damages under CC3294.

Signatures Network v. MJ Net 323256 [9/4hrg] - granted.

Conley v. Roman Catholic Archbishop 300008 9/5hrg - It appears this matter has been resolved and counsel may submit a stipulated order in lieu of appearing. Counsel should advise if this matter will require any hearing.

Franchise Tax Board v. Leong 501526 9/5hrg - Counsel should advise the court if this matter is still on calendar. No additional papers are available for review, other than the initial order to show cause. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Herships v. Niemier 405249 9/5hrg - denied. Sanctions granted to defendant.

Russell v. Douvan 324434 9/5hrg - granted.
No opposition or reply is available for review by the court. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Bollwage v. Nuncio 312150 [9/5hrg] - Terminating sanctions appear excessive compared to the discovery not provided and since there is no trial date or urgency at this time. It is not clear what the sanction would be or against what party since plaintiff has not sued cross-defendant directly. The sanction should be tailored to the lost discovery and designed to provide what the discovery would have provided. The court would enter a second order for monetary sanctions and compelling plaintiff to answer with a warning that dismissal of plaintiff's action could follow if discovery is not provided. A sanction against plaintiff should not prejudice cross-complainants.

Barbera v. WMC Mortgage 322066 9/5hrg - Counsel must discuss each issur on each discovery matter in dispute prior to any hearing. Counsel should meet Tues afternoon and Wednesday morning to resolve issue and agree on what matters need to be determined by the court. If necessary after such discussions in good faith to resolve the issues, a short continuance might be required.

Lagrone v. Webcor 401286 [9/6hrg] - No opposition received.
It appears that all motions should be granted. Counsel are required to confer on the times for IME and deposition completion prior to any hearing. Sanctions appear mandatory and appropriate though the dollar amount appears somewhat excessive. Absent a hearing on the matter, plaintiff is ordered to pay a total of $2500 as reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred, including the reasonable costs of the missed IME. Because of the pending trial date the IME must be taken soon and absent some further facts or agreement of counsel will be set for the requested date. The deposition may be set by agreement or 7 calendar days notice.

Haddad v. Culwell 401332 [9/6hrg] - granted. Assuming no hearing is required since there is no opposition or reply, monetary sanctions are limited to $800.

Fernando v. McKee 322536 [9/6hrg] - No opposition received.
This motion is denied without prejudice. The court does not impose monetary sanctions upon monetary sanctions. A party may execute on the monetary sanctions order as any other judgment. As to discovery, an order to comply with an order is unnecessary and duplicative. If appropriate, a motion for additional appropriate evidentiary or issue or terminating sanctions will be considered. See Newland v. Superior Court (1995), 40 Cal.App.4th 608; Midwife v. Bernal(1988) [RD non-payment doesn't create presumption that position lacks merit; refusal of disc.= admit no merit]; Jones v. Otero(1984)[dismissal for non-payment by atty rev'd]

Schutte v. Calif. Pacific Med Ctr 992890 [9/6hrg] - It is not clear that defendant has admitted that it is liable for the negligence, if any, of nurse Lam. If it clearly admits that nurse Lam is an employee acting within the course and scope of her employment and that the defendant would be vicarously liable for her acts and negligence, discovery on an alternative theory would be unnecessary. If not, plaintiff should be allowed to procede subject to any other proper objections to specific questions. On the assumption that vicarious liability is admitted, the motion for a protective order preventing the deposition would be granted.

Maldonado v. Moskowitz 320834 9/10hrg - deneid.
It does not appear that the records are consumer records in that it is a deposition transcript available to both sides, the court reporter and anyone who orders it as opposed to a document pertaining to a consumer maintained by an attorney. Records maintained by court reporters are not consumer records. Copies in the possession of an attorney do not become consumer records.
Although parties may agree to confidentiality, that agreement is not binding on 3rd parties. It appears that the deposition transcripts are relevant and may lead to admissible evidence, are not privileged, and are discoverable. In deference to the prior agreement, counsel should and the court would consider and would be inclined to grant a protective order limiting the use of the transcript to this action absent further order of court.

Citicorp Vendor Finance v. SF Interactive 409820 9/10hrg - file located and amended advisory is: Attachment Granted .

Boyer v. Billings 375046 9/11hrg - No papers or court file are available for review. Please see Suggested Complimentary Copy Procedure set forth on the website at CaliforniaDiscovery.Findlaw.com by clicking to SAN FRANCISCO DISCOVERY

Mikheyev v. Kulberg 325116 [9/11hrg] - Assuming a verification is provided it appears that the responses are not in compliance with all the particulars of CCP 2031. Counsel must meet and confer to determine if there are specific documents at issue for the court to rule upon. Defendant is entitled to a response under oath that fully complies with 2031(g). The tax return privilege has been raised and is broader than tax returns themselves and includes, inter alia, W-2 forms. Defendant is entitled to the statement under oath of a diligent search.
It further appears that defendant is entitled to an award of sanctions as the prevailing party and that the amount requested was reasonable.
Vargas v. Osburn 400492 9/12 hrg - granted. Sanctions limited to $1500 if defendant is not required by plaintiff to appear.

Morrison & Foerster v. Etracks 404294 [9/12hrg] - Granted.
The associational privacy danger appears remote. Nor does it appear that anyone using email to complain is particularly concerned about private matters in their email. Etracks may discharge its duties to such persons by notifying them of the nature of the disclosure. At any hearing Etracks should provide exemplars of the types of documents that give rise to its concerns and may redact names for this purpose. Presumeably, plaintiff would agree to a protective order. As to non-California complaints, it is assumed the plaintiff would prefer not to have those but will undertake the burden of sorting them out.

Great American Ins Co. v. Rudy Exelrod 409506 [9/12hrg] - This matter should be continued until after the ruling on the motion to stay.

Reasbeck v. Raybestos 309252 9/13hrg - granted. No opposition received.

Oxford v. AP Green 314462 9/13hrg - granted

Smith v. Matson Navigation 402632 9/13hrg - granted

Boyer v. Billings 375046 [9/13hrg] - granted.

Shure v. Shu 404842 [9/16hgr] - granted re deposition questions.

Emborgo v. Zara