On November 08, 2019 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Santiago De Olvera Estela,
and
Fca Us Llc,
for civil
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 48
19STCV40302 August 14, 2020
ESTELA SANTIAGO DE OLVERA vs FCA US LLC 10:00 AM
Judge: Honorable Laura A. Seigle CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: K. Lappin ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: S. Brown Deputy Sheriff: None
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff(s): Guy Mizrahi, Esq. appears via CourtConnect
For Defendant(s): Rebecca Amirpour appears via CourtConnect for Matthew M. Proudfoot
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
to Request for Production of Documents (Set One); Hearing on Motion to Compel Further
Discovery Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One)
The Court's tentative ruling is posted online and in Court for parties/counsel to review.
The matter is called for hearing and argued.
After hearing oral argument, the Court adopts its tentative ruling with modifications as the Order
of the Court as follows:
The Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Estela Santiago De Olvera on
04/27/2020 is Granted in Part.
The Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents
(Set One) filed by Estela Santiago De Olvera on 04/27/2020 is Granted.
ORDER RE MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
On April 27, 2020, Plaintiff Estela Santiago de Olvera filed motions to compel further responses
to requests for production and special interrogatories. Defendant FCA US LLC supplemented
some responses. In its statement filed before the July 31, 2020 informal discovery conference,
Defendant stated it would provide further supplemental responses to Request Nos. 16, 17, and
57. On August 10, 2020, Plaintiff submitted a statement that Request Nos. 11, 12, 16, 17, and 57,
and Special Interrogatory No. 43 remain in dispute and Defendant had not produce the
documents it said it would.
The Court rules as follows:
Minute Order Page 1 of 2
Document Filed Date
August 14, 2020
Case Filing Date
November 08, 2019
Status
Request for Dismissal - Before Trial not following ADR or more than 60 days since ADR 07/28/2021
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 48 19STCV40302 August 14, 2020 ESTELA SANTIAGO DE OLVERA vs FCA US LLC 10:00 AM Judge: Honorable Laura A. Seigle CSR: None Judicial Assistant: K. Lappin ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: S. Brown Deputy Sheriff: None APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff(s): Guy Mizrahi, Esq. appears via CourtConnect For Defendant(s): Rebecca Amirpour appears via CourtConnect for Matthew M. Proudfoot NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One); Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One) The Court's tentative ruling is posted online and in Court for parties/counsel to review. The matter is called for hearing and argued. After hearing oral argument, the Court adopts its tentative ruling with modifications as the Order of the Court as follows: The Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Estela Santiago De Olvera on 04/27/2020 is Granted in Part. The Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) filed by Estela Santiago De Olvera on 04/27/2020 is Granted. ORDER RE MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES On April 27, 2020, Plaintiff Estela Santiago de Olvera filed motions to compel further responses to requests for production and special interrogatories. Defendant FCA US LLC supplemented some responses. In its statement filed before the July 31, 2020 informal discovery conference, Defendant stated it would provide further supplemental responses to Request Nos. 16, 17, and 57. On August 10, 2020, Plaintiff submitted a statement that Request Nos. 11, 12, 16, 17, and 57, and Special Interrogatory No. 43 remain in dispute and Defendant had not produce the documents it said it would. The Court rules as follows: Minute Order Page 1 of 2