Motion,Ex Parte: SHELLEY KRAMER VS. KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK & GONZO LLP, A LIMITED et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                cn

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
dan-03-2014 41:24 am

Case Number: CGC-12-524871

Filing Date: Jan-03-2014 11:23

Filed by: ROBERT GOULDING
Juke Box: 001 Image: 04328832
GENERIC CIVIL FILING (NO FEE)

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

001004328832

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

SHELLEY KRAMER,
Plaintiff,

VS.

KAUFMAN DOLOWICH VOLUCK, LLP and
KATHERINE CATLOS, et al.,

Defendants,

-L
TENTATIVE DECISION

¥

San Francisco Caunty Superior Court

JAN = 3 egt4

CLERKOF THE COURT
BY; ~
uty Clerk

CASE NUMBER: CGC-12-524871

Tentative Decisions

1.) Defendant Motion to Compel
Further Answers to Interrogatory
Set 3

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 Master

Date: January 7, 2014

Time: 10:00am

Department: 502

Judge: Hon. A. James Robertson1.) Defendant Motion to Compe! 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
Kane as follows: Request for Answers to Interrogatorics 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 23, 30, 32, DENIED.
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
Court adopts recommendations of Judge Pro Tem Robert Kane, Request for a Further Response

-2-
TENTATIVE DECISIONto Request for production DENIED.

3.) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Mental Examination
The Court has reviewed the supporting and opposing papers and recommendations of
Judge Pro Tem Robert Kane dated December 30, 2013 and now adopts this recommendation as
it’s Decision. Mental Examination is Ordered, subject to each and every condition

recommended by Judge Pro Tem Robert Kane.

4.) Motion to file further response to Interrogatory 217.2

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

Robert Kane.

5.) Plaintiff's Motion for Production of Documents

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

Kane.

7.) Selection of Special Master

The Court intends to appoint a Special Master to deal with discovery issues, particularly with

reference to privilege issues. Counsel for Plaintiff and Counsel for Defendant are each to select

their two recommendations for appointment and to provide them to the Court. The Court will

-3-
TENTATIVE DECISIONpermit cach side to strike one recommendation of the other side. The Court will select one of the

two remaining candidates unless counsel agree to a single candidate.

Tt is so Ordered.

Dated: o

SUPERIOR COURT

-4.
TENTATIVE DECISIONSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Francisco

SHELLEY KRAMER Case Number: CGC-12-524871
vs,
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
KAUFMAN, DOLOWICH, VOLUCK & GONZO, (CCP 1013a (4))
LLP, et al.
Defendant(s)

I, Robert Goulding, a Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court of the County of San Francisco,
certify that I am not a party to the within action.

On January 3, 2014 I served the attached Tentative Decision, by email and in addition by
placing a copy thereof in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows:

PIETER BOGAARDS NANCY M. MCCARTHY

Attorney at Law LAW OFFICES OF NANCY P MCCARTHY
103 E. Blithedale Avenue, Suite 10 1000 Drakes Landing Road

Mill Valley, CA 94941 Greenbrae, CA 94904

Pieter@bogaards.com Macezord@aol.com

and, I then placed the sealed envelopes in the outgoing mail at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco,
CA. 94102 on the date indicated above for collection, attachment of required prepaid postage, and
mailing on that date following standard court practices.

Dated: January 3, 2014
T. Michael Yuen, Clerk