On September 24, 2007 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
and
for (Breach of Contract/Warranty)
in the District Court of Sacramento County.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
Date: 08/27/2009 Time: 09:00:00 AM Dept: 54
Judicial Officer Presiding: Judge Shelleyanne W L Chang
Clerk: E. Higginbotham
Bailiff/Court Attendant: None
ERM: None
Case Init. Date: 11/10/2007
Case No: 07AS04450 Case Title: RODNEY ABBOTT. ET AL VS. RONALD PAUL
BRITSCHGI. ET AL
Case Category: Civil - Unlimited
Event Type: Motion - Other - Civil Law and Motion
Causal Document & Date Filed:
Appearances:
Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Leave to Reopen Discovery
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiffs' motion to reopen discovery is granted in part and denied in part.
Discovery is reopened as follows: 1) the parties may conduct further testing regarding "compaction
problems under the house;" 2) the parties may conduct further discovery as to Construction Testing &
Engineering, Inc. and Mark Smith dba Groundbreakers, including the deposition of those defendants'
PMK's. The motion is otherwise denied. The court agrees with defendants that plaintiffs' request to
subpoena records from third parties and deposing their PMK's remains vague and is not supported by
the required showing of necessity and diligence. CCP § 2024.050(b).
Defendants ask the court to allow the parties to conduct discovery on new issues. The court declines to
rule on defendants' requests, made in their supplemental papers. If defendants seek to conduct
additional discovery, they may, if necessary, proceed by noticed motion.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC rule 3.1312 or other notice
is required.
Although plaintiffs provided defendants notice of the court's tentative ruling system as required by LR
3.04(D), the notice does not comply with recent changes to that rule. Moving counsel is directed to
review the court's Local Rules, effective January 1, 2009.
COURT RULING
There being no request for oral argument, the Court affirmed the tentative ruling.
Date: 08/27/2009 MINUTE ORDER Page: 1
Dept: 54 Calendar No.:
Document Filed Date
August 27, 2009
Case Filing Date
September 24, 2007
Category
(Breach of Contract/Warranty)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER Date: 08/27/2009 Time: 09:00:00 AM Dept: 54 Judicial Officer Presiding: Judge Shelleyanne W L Chang Clerk: E. Higginbotham Bailiff/Court Attendant: None ERM: None Case Init. Date: 11/10/2007 Case No: 07AS04450 Case Title: RODNEY ABBOTT. ET AL VS. RONALD PAUL BRITSCHGI. ET AL Case Category: Civil - Unlimited Event Type: Motion - Other - Civil Law and Motion Causal Document & Date Filed: Appearances: Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Leave to Reopen Discovery TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiffs' motion to reopen discovery is granted in part and denied in part. Discovery is reopened as follows: 1) the parties may conduct further testing regarding "compaction problems under the house;" 2) the parties may conduct further discovery as to Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. and Mark Smith dba Groundbreakers, including the deposition of those defendants' PMK's. The motion is otherwise denied. The court agrees with defendants that plaintiffs' request to subpoena records from third parties and deposing their PMK's remains vague and is not supported by the required showing of necessity and diligence. CCP § 2024.050(b). Defendants ask the court to allow the parties to conduct discovery on new issues. The court declines to rule on defendants' requests, made in their supplemental papers. If defendants seek to conduct additional discovery, they may, if necessary, proceed by noticed motion. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC rule 3.1312 or other notice is required. Although plaintiffs provided defendants notice of the court's tentative ruling system as required by LR 3.04(D), the notice does not comply with recent changes to that rule. Moving counsel is directed to review the court's Local Rules, effective January 1, 2009. COURT RULING There being no request for oral argument, the Court affirmed the tentative ruling. Date: 08/27/2009 MINUTE ORDER Page: 1 Dept: 54 Calendar No.: