Motion to Augment in California

RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO AUGMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD Respondents’ motion to augment the record to include the 6 volumes of records filed 10/8/21.

RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO AUGMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD Respondents’ motion to augment the record to include the 6 volumes of records filed 10/8/21.

RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO AUGMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD Respondents’ motion to augment the record to include the 6 volumes of records filed 10/8/21.

RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO AUGMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD Respondents’ motion to augment the record to include the 6 volumes of records filed 10/8/21.

RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO AUGMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD Respondents’ motion to augment the record to include the 6 volumes of records filed 10/8/21.

RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO AUGMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD Respondents’ motion to augment the record to include the 6 volumes of records filed 10/8/21.

RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO AUGMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD Respondents’ motion to augment the record to include the 6 volumes of records filed 10/8/21.

RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO AUGMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD Respondents’ motion to augment the record to include the 6 volumes of records filed 10/8/21.

RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO AUGMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD Respondents’ motion to augment the record to include the 6 volumes of records filed 10/8/21.

RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO AUGMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD Respondents’ motion to augment the record to include the 6 volumes of records filed 10/8/21.

RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO AUGMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD Respondents’ motion to augment the record to include the 6 volumes of records filed 10/8/21.

RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO AUGMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD Respondents’ motion to augment the record to include the 6 volumes of records filed 10/8/21.

RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO AUGMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD Respondents’ motion to augment the record to include the 6 volumes of records filed 10/8/21.

Notice Of Motion To Augment And Update His Expert Witness Designation. Set for hearing on Tuesday, June 28, 2016, Line 3, PLAINTIFF VICTOR TUNG'S Motion To Augment And Update His Expert Witness Designation. Plaintiff Victor Tung's motion to augment and update his expert witness designation is granted in its entirety. The court adopts the recommendation and reasoning of the judge pro tem.

RURAL ASSOCIATION OF CVRI2105097 MEAD VALLEY VS COUNTY MOTION TO AUGMENT OF RIVERSIDE Tentative Ruling: The hearing on the motion to augment is continued to 2-3-23 at 8:30 A.M.

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Augment Expert Disclosure; Unlawful Detainer Law and Motion Calendar for Monday, January 3, 2012, line 6. Defendants Sosa and Morales' Motion to Augment Expert Disclosure. Granted. = (501/REQ)

Motion to Augment Respondents argue Petitioners are improperly seeking to introduce extra-record evidence without first filing a motion to augment. Absent a subdivision (e) showing, Respondents argue Petitioners are not entitled to place such evidence before the Court. Petitioners have filed a motion to augment the record, which seeks to supplement the record with regard to 8 documents.

On August 4, 2020, Defendant filed a “Motion to Augment and/or Contest Tenative (sic) Ruling.” In the motion, Defendant asserts that he has attached copies of the documents of “Plaintiff’s Proof of Subponea of Bank Records.” (sic). There were in fact no attachments to the motion, and no records have subsequently been submitted. The motion to augment the record is denied, with prejudice.

Cross-Defendants' Notice Of Motion And Motion To Augment Expert Witness Disclosure Matter on calendar for Wednesday, May 23, 2018, Line 13, CROSS DEFENDANT JAKE NG, STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S Motion To Augment Expert Witness Disclosure. This motion will be heard in department 501 on the same day and time. =(302/HEK)

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Augment Plaintiff'S Expert Witness List To Include Name And Address Of Treating Physician The matter on calendar for Monday, October 18, 2010, line 2. PLAINTIFF MARK MCGARVEY's Motion To Augment Plaintiff's Expert Witness List To Include Name And Address Of Treating Physician is off calendar per request of moving party. = (CWW/302)

Notice Of Motion To Augment The Administrative Record Set for hearing on Monday, September 13, 2010, line 5. PETITIONERS ASSOCIATION OF IRRITATED RESIDENTS, CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES AGAINST TOXICS, COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT,, COMMUNITIES FOR A SAFE ENVIRONMENT, HENRY CLARK, MARTHA ARGUELLO'S Motion To Augment The Administrative Record is off calendar. Judge Goldsmith, the designated C.E.Q.A. judge is hearing this matter. =(302/CWW)

Notice Of Defendants Motion To Augment Expert Witness Disclosure And Compel Elena Phillips To Attend Independent Mental Examination Set for hearing on Thursday, August 10, 2017, Line 1, DEFENDANT BAY CLUB PENINSULA, LLC, THE BAY CLUBS COMPANY, LLC's Motion To Augment Expert Witness Disclosure And Compel Elena Phillips To Attend Independent Mental Examination Defendants Bay Club Peninsula, LLC and The Bay Clubs Company, LLC's motion to augment expert witness disclosure and compel Elena Phillips to attend

MOTION And Notice Of Motion To Augment Its Expert Designation And To Have Its Offer Of Expert Dr. Allan Feingold Deemed Timely Set for hearing on Tuesday, September 29, 2009, line 13, DEFENDANT HILL BROTHERS CHEMICAL COMPANY'S Motion To Augment Its Expert Designation And To Have Its Offer Of Expert Dr. Allan Feingold Deemed Timely IS OFF CALENDAR, MATTER TO BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 610. =(302/CWW)

Notice Of Motion To Augment The Administrative Record Set for hearing on Tuesday, August 31, 2010, line 11, PETITIONERS ASSOCIATION OF IRRITATED RESIDENTS, CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES AGAINST TOXICS, COMMUNITIES FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNITIES FOR A SAFE ENVIRONMENT, HENRY CLARK, AND MARTHA ARGUELLO'S Motion To Augment The Administrative Record IS CONTINUED ON COURT'S OWN MOTION TO SEPTEMBER 13, 2010. MOVING PARTY TO PROVIDE COURTESY COPIES TO DEPARTMENT 302. =(302/CWW)

Notice Of Motion To Augment Record Matter on calendar for Monday, March 25, 2013, Line 6, PETITIONER FRANK KING's Motion To Augment Record. Continued to April 16, 2013 on the Court's own motion. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. =(302/MJM)

MOTION TO AUGMENT OR AMEND MIKHAIL VS VALENZUELA RIC2002299 EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION BY CASTRO SARGIS MIKHAIL Tentative Ruling: The Court does not consider the untimely opposition filed 12-9-21. The motion to augment is denied. Analysis: Trial in this matter was first set for 9-10-21. When no courtroom was available, the trial was continued to 11-24-21, and subsequently to 2-10-22. Accordingly, the motion is untimely, and may be granted only under “exceptional circumstances.” (C.C.P. §2034.610(b).)

Notice Of Motion To Augment Record Set for hearing on Tuesday, April 16, 2013, Line 8, PETITIONER FRANK KING Motion To Augment Record. Petitioner's motion to augment the record is denied. As to the September 16, 2012 Social Security Administration decision, Petitioner failed to make a threshold showing that the Social Security Administration decision is relevant for the purposes of analyzing Petitioner's application for ordinary disability retirement, which is based on a different legal standard.

Defendants' Motion To Augment Expert Witness List Set for hearing on Wednesday, August 29, 2018, Line 7, Defendants' Motion To Augment Expert Witness List. Defendants Ashley and Philip Davis' motion to augment expert witness list to add Brian Doherty is denied. The premise of the motion is that defendants were surprised that plaintiff Rashni Singh's expert Dr. Lawrence Nordhoff testified at his deposition that he had opinions regarding biomechanics of the accident that is the subject of this case.

Case Number: BC651745 Hearing Date: September 8, 2023 Dept: 57 Plaintiffs' Motion to Augment Expert Witness Designations is denied. The Motion is untimely -- and quite so, in fact. Plaintiffs have failed to show under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2034.620(b) the presence of "exceptional circumstances" that would justify the filing of a motion to augment expert designations at such a late date. Trial is scheduled to commence ten days from now.

MOTION TO AUGMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD The motion to augment the administrative record with the 13 emails identified in Exhibit A to the declaration of Jamie Garretson is granted. Petitioner has failed to provide applicable authority for the request for a judicial declaration that the administrative record is not complete as augmented, or that it cannot be made complete.

County of Los Angeles 21TRCV00695 County of Los Angeles Motion to Augment Administrative Record TENTATIVE RULING Background Plaintiff filed the Complaint on September 24, 2021. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff appeals a decision of the Los Angeles Assessment Appeals Board (Board) that set a new base year value of Plaintiffs property for tax purposes.

Ruling on Defendant's Motion to Augment Defendants' motion to augment expert designations is granted. The request for sanctions is granted. Within 30 days of this ruling, Plaintiff is ordered to pay Defendants sanctions in the amount of $4,305. Ruling on Defendants' Motion to Compel Compliance with Business Records Subpoena Initially, the Court notes that Michael Uszler, M.D. and St. John's Health Center's submission of documents in support of its notice of lodgment was untimely.

PETITIONER'S NOTICE OF MOTION RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RIC2003210 AND MOTION TO AUGMENT THE VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD Tentative Ruling: The petitioner’s motion to augment the administrative record with six documents is denied. Analysis: No. 1: The petitioner justifies the addition of the community plan on the ground that the 1988 EIR refers to the 1987 community plan. But the document sought to be added is not the community plan as adopted in 1987.

PETITIONER'S NOTICE OF MOTION RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RIC2003210 AND MOTION TO AUGMENT THE VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD Tentative Ruling: The petitioner’s motion to augment the administrative record with six documents is denied. Analysis: No. 1: The petitioner justifies the addition of the community plan on the ground that the 1988 EIR refers to the 1987 community plan. But the document sought to be added is not the community plan as adopted in 1987.

PETITIONER'S NOTICE OF MOTION RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION RIC2003210 AND MOTION TO AUGMENT THE VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD Tentative Ruling: The petitioner’s motion to augment the administrative record with six documents is denied. Analysis: No. 1: The petitioner justifies the addition of the community plan on the ground that the 1988 EIR refers to the 1987 community plan. But the document sought to be added is not the community plan as adopted in 1987.

CV-23-005619 - KHOSHABA, NAHRAIN vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES – a) Petition for Writ of Mandate; b) Petitioner’s Motion to Augment the Administrative Record - a)-b) - HEARING REQUIRED. The Court notes that the Motion to Augment was not filed or served in compliance with the time and notice requirements set forth in Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b); therefore, it is not procedurally proper at this time.

CV-23-005619 - KHOSHABA, NAHRAIN vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES – a) Petition for Writ of Mandate; b) Petitioner’s Motion to Augment the Administrative Record - a)-b) - HEARING REQUIRED. The Court notes that the Motion to Augment was not filed or served in compliance with the time and notice requirements set forth in Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b); therefore, it is not procedurally proper at this time.

CV-23-005619 - KHOSHABA, NAHRAIN vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES – a) Petition for Writ of Mandate; b) Petitioner’s Motion to Augment the Administrative Record - a)-b) - HEARING REQUIRED. The Court notes that the Motion to Augment was not filed or served in compliance with the time and notice requirements set forth in Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b); therefore, it is not procedurally proper at this time.

CV-23-005619 - KHOSHABA, NAHRAIN vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES – a) Petition for Writ of Mandate; b) Petitioner’s Motion to Augment the Administrative Record - a)-b) - HEARING REQUIRED. The Court notes that the Motion to Augment was not filed or served in compliance with the time and notice requirements set forth in Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b); therefore, it is not procedurally proper at this time.

Motion to augment expert witness list TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff AUDREY STOUT’s Motion to Augment Expert Witness List is DENIED. Plaintiff acknowledges that this motion is brought beyond the time limit set forth in Code Civ. Proc. § 2034.610. The Court does not find that any “exceptional circumstances” exist which would warrant this motion being made at such a late time, merely ten days before trial. Moreover, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the conditions set forth in Code Civ.

They forced the filing of the motion to augment and strenuously objected to any continuance on the grounds of prejudice. The lack of civility is concerning. Have the reasons for prejudice mysteriously disappeared? Is it only prejudicial when the defendant wanted the continuance but not when plaintiff wanted it?

Tentative Ruling: The court denies plaintiff’s motion to augment the record on appeal because she has filed it in the wrong court.

The Court thus DENIES the motion to augment and amend Plaintiff’s written exchange. The Court also DENIES the motion to reopen discovery. The sole basis for that motion is the purported need to substitute Dr. Singh for Dr. Giacobetti. Since the Court denies the motion to augment, the motion to reopen discovery is also DENIED.

Thus, the issue in this motion comes down to what the court intended in granting defendants’ motion to augment. The simple fact is that, in granting the motion to augment, the court intended to permit defendant to retain a medical doctor to counter the opinions offered in Dr. Smith’s deposition because only such an expert complied with the requirements of CCP section 2034.1620(c).

Defendant Campus Surgery Centers Notice Of Motion To Augment Expert Disclosure _1050858 Matter on calendar for Monday, February 9, 2015, Line 16, DEFENDANT CAMPUS SURGERY CENTER, Defendant Campus Surgery Centers Notice Of Motion To Augment Expert Disclosure. (Late Tentative) Granted. The Declaration of Norman La Force establishes that the requirements of CCP sec. 2034.620 are met.

Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to augment her expert witness list is GRANTED. Moving Party is to give notice.

CV-23-005619 – KHOSHABA, NAHRAIN vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES – a) Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandate – HEARING REQUIRED; b) Petitioner’s Motion to Augment the Administrative Record – HEARING REQUIRED. a-b) The Court notes that the Motion to Augment was not filed or served in compliance with the time and notice requirements set forth in Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b); therefore, it is not procedurally proper at this time.

CV-23-005619 – KHOSHABA, NAHRAIN vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES – a) Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandate – HEARING REQUIRED; b) Petitioner’s Motion to Augment the Administrative Record – HEARING REQUIRED. a-b) The Court notes that the Motion to Augment was not filed or served in compliance with the time and notice requirements set forth in Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b); therefore, it is not procedurally proper at this time.

CV-23-005619 – KHOSHABA, NAHRAIN vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES – a) Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandate – HEARING REQUIRED; b) Petitioner’s Motion to Augment the Administrative Record – HEARING REQUIRED. a-b) The Court notes that the Motion to Augment was not filed or served in compliance with the time and notice requirements set forth in Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b); therefore, it is not procedurally proper at this time.

CV-23-005619 – KHOSHABA, NAHRAIN vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES – a) Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandate – HEARING REQUIRED; b) Petitioner’s Motion to Augment the Administrative Record – HEARING REQUIRED. a-b) The Court notes that the Motion to Augment was not filed or served in compliance with the time and notice requirements set forth in Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b); therefore, it is not procedurally proper at this time.

The court reserved December 3, 2020, for a hearing on Petitioners’ motion to augment the record. The court ordered all papers to be filed and served pursuant to CCP section 1005. Respondent’s counsel attended the ex parte hearing. On November 13, 2020, Petitioners untimely filed and served their motion to augment the record. On November 16, 2020, Petitioners untimely filed and served their corrected motion to augment the record.

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Augment Pltf'S Expert Witness List Hearing set for Friday, June 21, 2013, Line 1: Plaintiff CHARMAINE FELGUTH'S Motion to Augment Plaintiff's Expert Witness List Pro Tem Judge Rebecca Woodson, a member of the California State Bar who meets all the requirements set forth in CRC 2.812 to serve as a temporary judge, has been assigned to hear this motion.

The original memorandum sought $1,071.70 (“Appeal Transcript Record (2,544 @ .35/page) + motion to augment (518@ .35/page),” while the Amended memorandum seeks $1,242.50 (“Appeal record, Motion to Augment, Pet. Rehearing, Calif. Sup. Ct, etc. 3,550 pages @ .35/page”).

Ruling on HOA's Motion to Strike Prinz's Amended Motion to Augment HOA requests that the Court strike Prinz's Amended Motion to Augment, filed on September 20, 2018, on the grounds that the Amended Motion was filed after HOA's Opposition, without first obtaining leave of court.

The City’s and RPI’s motion to augment the record is therefore granted.

Conclusion The motion to augment the record is DENIED as moot. The motion to remand is DENIED.

Motion to Augment the Record Petitioner concurrently filed a motion to augment the record with its opening brief. ROA # 41. Under the local rules (Civil Local Rule 2.1.19), if a hearing date is not reserved, the motion will not be heard. Because petitioner did not calendar the motion for hearing it will not be heard.

Nature of Proceedings: MOTION TO AUGMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD AND TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY The parties are ordered to appear at the hearing set for January 13, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. conceming Petitioners' Motion to Augment the Administrative Record and to Conduct Discovery.

.: BC721623 Hearing Date: February 25, 2020 [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Defendants new star realty and jenny s. nam’s motion to augment defendants’ expert witness list Defendants New Star Realty and Jenny S. Nam’s Motion to Augment the Expert Witness List is GRANTED. Factual Background This is a negligence action.

Also on September 19, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application to shorten time to hear a motion to augment Plaintiffs’ expert designation. The Court granted the ex parte application and set the hearing for October 2, 2019. The Court will also hear the motion to continue the trial on October 2, 2019.

Motion No. 1: Supplemental Motion to Augment the Expert Witness Designation: The Motion to Augment Expert witness Designation is GRANTED. Defendant complied with Civ. Proc. Code § 2034.620. Under a standard similar to Civ. Proc. Code § 473, Defendant was “surprised” that the original doctor failed to cooperate. Defendant will provide the new expert for deposition. Plaintiff has not taken the deposition of the prior expert. There is no real prejudice to Plaintiff.

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Augment Or Amend Expert Witness Information Or Submit Tardy Expert Witness Information Matter on calendar for Wednesday, November 16, 2016, Line 17, DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Motion To Augment Or Amend Expert Witness Information Or Submit Tardy Expert Witness Information. Defendant City and County of San Francisco's motion to submit tardy expert witness information is granted.

Accordingly, the motion to augment is granted. As represented by Plaintiff’s counsel, the expert shall be made available for deposition immediately.

The Court directed defense counsel to bring a motion to augment if defendant wanted to add an untimely expert. Trial was continued to February 21, 2020. Defendant waited until December 5, 2019 to appear ex parte for an order shortening time to bring a motion to augment. Due to the court's impacted calendar, the only date available was December 20, 2019.

Nature of Proceedings: MOTION TO AUGMENT THE RECORD The following shall constitute the Court's tentative ruling on the above referenced motions, which are scheduled to be heard by the Court on Friday, July 13, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 28.

Conclusion and Order Plaintiff’s motion to augment his expert witness list is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: August 28, 2019 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Court

MOTION TO AUGMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD APPEARANCE REQUIRED

Plaintiff's Motion to Augment Expert Witness List is GRANTED.

Motion to Augment Exhibit List and Witness List 2. Status Conference

Nature of Proceedings: MOTION TO AUGMENT The following shall constitute the Court’s tentative ruling on the motion to augment which is scheduled to be heard by the Court on Friday, June 22, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 28.

In ruling on a motion to augment an expert witness designation, the court must take into account “the extent to which the opposing party has relied on the list of expert witnesses . . . ,” and must determine that the opposing party “will not be prejudiced in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.620, subd. (a)-(b).)

Plaintiff moves for leave to amend only if the Court deems it necessary to grant the motion to augment. As mentioned above, CCP section 2034.620 does not contain a requirement that the court make a preliminary determination as to the admissibility of the expert's opinions before a motion to augment may be granted. Plaintiff has met her burden under CCP section 2034.620. The Court finds it unnecessary for Plaintiff to amend her complaint for the motion to augment to be granted.

The motion to augment is moot.

[Tentative] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AUGMENT THE RECORD ORDER _________ PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE

The court will hear argument on petitioner’s motion to augment the record.

Tentative Ruling: The court grants in part, and denies in part, Wonderful’s motion to augment the record.

Motion to Augment trial exhibits and witness list 2. Status Conference Continued to February 19, 2021

MOTION TO AUGMENT SIMPSON VS CITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD BY RIC1906168 RIVERSIDE SCOTT SIMPSON, DVONNE PITRUZZELLO, KEVIN DAWSON Tentative Ruling: The plaintiffs’ motion to augment the administrative record with RJN exhibits 6 through 13 is granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, it is granted as to exhibits 6 through 11, and otherwise denied.

Motion to augment the administrative record is also GRANTED. There is no opposition.

MOTION TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST (CCP § 2034.61 et seq)) Date: 10/25/19 Case: Cesar Romero, et al. v. Li-Chuan Shih, et al. (EC 064933) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Li-Chuan Shih’s and Tun-Jen Ko’s Motion to Augment Expert Witness List is GRANTED, pursuant to CCP § 2034.620.

Defendant also requests that the court extend discovery cut-off because Plaintiff has filed a motion to augment its expert witness designation to include a cardiology expert regarding a medical condition that Plaintiff previously waived. At this juncture, that request is premature. The court declines to extend discovery cut-off until after the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to augment its expert witness.

HEARING ON MOTION TO AUGMENT COSTS AND AMEND JUDGMENT FILED BY PAUL NORTON * TENTATIVE RULING: * See #1 above.

HEARING ON MOTION TO AUGMENT OR AMEND EXPERT WITNESS LIST FILED BY NEW AMERICA GROUP, INC. * TENTATIVE RULING: * Appear.

Exhibits A and B to the motion to augment address filing and service of the petition and ex parte papers. While the Court does not immediately see the materiality of these documents, the City argues timeliness of the writ petition in opposition to the writ petition and these documents may be probative in response to such argument. The Court therefore grants VSS’ motion to augment the record by the inclusion of the documents set forth in exhibits A to M to the motion to augment.

MOTION TO AUGMENT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD TENTATIVE RULING: The matter is continued to January 24, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. C.

Motion To Augment Expert Witness Information & Impose Monetary Sanction OFF CALENDAR DISCOVERY MATTER. MOVING PARTY TO RE-CALENDAR IN DISCOVERY DEPT.(302/REQ)

MOTION TO AUGMENT THE RECORD, LEWIS VS HEMET MODEL CVRI2103649 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND MASTERS, INC. AUTHORITIES BY CHARLES LEWIS Tentative Ruling: GRANT unopposed motion.

Hearing on motion to augment and/or amend expert designation and motion to extend time for discovery off-calendar. Notice of settlement filed 4/24/2018.

Hearings on motion to augment and/or amend expert designation and motion to extend time for discovery continued to 5/11/2018 per 4/2/2018 Order.

BOARD OF REGISTERED NURSING Case Number: 19STCP04970 Hearing Date: October 23, 2020 [Tentative] ORDER DENYING WRIT PETITION [Tentative] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AUGMENT THE RECORD

Matter on calendar for Tuesday, May 18, 2021, Line 2 Hearing On Motion To Compel Re Deposition & Motion To Augment Record Duplicate calendar entry =(302/EPS)

TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiffs John Roe, Harley Renfro, John Roe 2's motion to augment plaintiff's first designation of expert witnesses is denied. Trial shall remain set for October 26, 2018.

CV-20-002244 – PIRO, HELEN vs CAMIDA INC – Defendant CMJ Group, LLC’S Motion to Augment Expert Witness List, Re-Open Discovery for an IME and Continue the Trial Date – HEARING REQUIRED.

Lee Parties are to appearvia CourtCall on Ameron motion to augment expert witness designation at 3 p.m. on 5/11/2021.

CV-20-002244 – PIRO, HELEN vs CAMIDA INC – Defendant CMJ Group, LLC’S Motion to Augment Expert Witness List, Re-Open Discovery for an IME and Continue the Trial Date – HEARING REQUIRED.

CV-20-002244 – PIRO, HELEN vs CAMIDA INC – Defendant CMJ Group, LLC’S Motion to Augment Expert Witness List, Re-Open Discovery for an IME and Continue the Trial Date – HEARING REQUIRED.

CV-20-002244 – PIRO, HELEN vs CAMIDA INC – Defendant CMJ Group, LLC’S Motion to Augment Expert Witness List, Re-Open Discovery for an IME and Continue the Trial Date – HEARING REQUIRED.

s Motion to Augment the Administrative Record