Party Discovery: SHELLEY KRAMER VS. KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK & GONZO LLP, A LIMITED et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                MOA

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Jan-07-2014 1:55 pm

Case Number: CGC-12-524871
Filing Date: Jan-07-2014 1:55
Filed by: ROBERT GOULDING
Juke Box: 001 Image: 04332286
GENERIC CIVIL FILING (NO FEE)

SHELLEY KRAMER VS. KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK & GONZO LLP, A
LIMITED et al

001004332286

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.FILED

San Fraricisco Couny Superia

Jah 77 7014
CLE F THE,COURT
BY: nt He en
X (Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
SHELLEY KRAMER, CASE NUMBER: CGC-12-524871
Plaintiff,
vs. oboe Decisions

KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK, LLP and 1.) Defendant Motion to Compel

KATHERINE CATLOS, et al., Further Answers to Interrogatory
Set 3
Defendants. 2.) Defendant’s Motion to Compel
Answers to Response to Documents
Request No. 4

3.) Defendant’s Motion to Compel
Mental Examination

4.) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further|
Responses to Form Interrogatories
217.2

5.) Plaintiff’s Motion For Production of
Documents |

6.) Selection of Special Discovery Maste

Date: January 7, 2014

Time: 10:00am

Department: 502

Judge: Hon. A. James Robertson

-1-
TENTATIVE DECISION1.) Defendant Motion to Compel Further Answers to Interrogatories Set 3.

The Court has reviewed the supporting and opposing papers as well as Judge Pro Tem
Robert Kane recommendations and the memorandum from defense counsel, Nancy McCarthy.

and now issues the following Tentative Decision with respect to Interrogatory Set 3.

The Court adopts the recommendation of Judge Kane as to all Interrogatories Set 3,
except 29 and 33 as to which further responses are ordered.

As to Interrogatory 29, Plaintiff is to identify to the extent she is able to do so any
specific written work which Plaintiff authored whether email or other written work which Catlo:

criticized during the period when the Plaintiff returned to work in July 2011 until Plaintiff was
terminated in October 2011. “

As to Interrogatory No. 33, Plain tiff is to specify any additional actions taken by Catlos
other than those set forth is presently in answer to this interrogatories which “isolated plaintiff

professionally and socially.”

The Court adopts as its decision all other recommendations of Judge Pro Tem Robert
Plaintiff is to further answer to Interrogatory 22 so as to identify the “several matters” referred
to. Plaintiff is to further respond to Interrogatories 25 and 31. Plaintiff is to answer

Interrogatories 36 to 64 subject to all objections.

2.) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses for Production Set 4

TENTATIVE DECISION
Fillo winy yaTerr yt, 62,03
16 (17 48 12% (2H DF 3¢e 3] .-

tnd 2 Pe 3G Toe V4An Arrow

Kane as follows: Request for Answers to Interrogatories 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 23, 30, 32, DENIED.Robert Kane.

Kane.

their two recomme!

reference to privilegN,

toRequest-for production” DENIED.

3.) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Mental Examination

4.) Motion to file further response to Interrogatory 217.2

The Court adopts as its Tentative Decision the recommendations of Judge Pro Tem

5.) Plaintiff's Motion for Production of Documents

-3-
TENTATIVE DECISION

~

The Court adopts as its Tentative Decision the recommendations of Judge Pro Tem RobertIt is so Ordered.

Dated:

K. NRTSON, I ~ |
JUD # SUPERIOR COURT

-4.
TENTATIVE DECISION