arrow left
arrow right
  • BROWN ET AL VS ROSEMA ET AL23-CV Other PI/PD/WD - Civil Unlimited document preview
  • BROWN ET AL VS ROSEMA ET AL23-CV Other PI/PD/WD - Civil Unlimited document preview
  • BROWN ET AL VS ROSEMA ET AL23-CV Other PI/PD/WD - Civil Unlimited document preview
  • BROWN ET AL VS ROSEMA ET AL23-CV Other PI/PD/WD - Civil Unlimited document preview
						
                                

Preview

Superior Court of California County of Kern Bakersfield Department 17 Hearing Date: 01/28/2021 Time: 8:30 AM - 12:00 PM BROWN ET AL VS ROSEMA ET AL BCV-19-100684 Honorable: Thomas S. Clark Clerk: Linda K. Hall Court Reporter: . None Bailiff: Deputy Sheriff Interpreter: Language Of: Court Call NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL Hearing Start Time:8:56 AM The above entitled cause came on regularly on this date and time with parties and/or counsel appearing as reflected. Counsel Abigail White appeared via court call on behalf of Plaintiff(s). Counsel Indra Lahiri appeared on behalf of Defendant - Lila Marie Rosema. No appearance by Defendant(s) - Samantha Monge & Carlos Monge. Matter argued by counsel and submitted. The Court makes the following findings and orders: Defendant Lila Marie Rosema's Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One from Plaintiff Heather Rosen & Defendant Lila Marie Rosema's Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production, set One: Overruled. Plaintiff's objections to the interrogatories are overruled and Plaintiff Heather Rosen is ordered to provide a further verified response to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1-15 propounded by Defendant Lila Marie Rosema by 02/17/2021, except that with respect to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15, which interrogatories ask Plaintiff to identify all documents and evidence upon which Plaintiff "will rely to prove" certain allegations, the work product objection appears to have some merit even without further justification. Accordingly, Plaintiff need not disclose evidence upon which Plaintiff intends to rely at trial at this time. Plaintiff's response should merely identify the documents and evidence that support Plaintiff's allegations referenced in each of these special interrogatories. Defendant Lila Marie Rosema seeks further responses to Request for Production, Set One, Nos. 1-6 from Plaintiff MINUTES Page 1 of 2 BROWN ET AL VS ROSEMA ET AL BCV-19-100684 Heather Rosen. Plaintiff's objections are overruled, except that the privilege objections are preserved. Plaintiff Heather Rosen shall provide a further verified response to Request for Production, Set One, Nos. 1-6 by 02/17/20217 and to the extent any document is withheld from production, a privilege log shall be concurrently served. Defendant's request for monetary sanctions is denied as the privilege objections appear to have some merit and the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. The court declines to award sanctions on either side. Clerk's minutes will be the order of the court. Further notice waived. FUTURE HEARINGS: October 08, 2021 9:00 AM Mandatory Settlement Conference Schuett, Stephen D. Sheriff, Deputy Bakersfield Department 18 October 25, 2021 9:00 AM Court Trial Clark, Thomas S. Bakersfield Department 17 Sheriff, Deputy MINUTES FINALIZED BY: LINDA HALL ON: 1/28/2021 MINUTES Page 2 of 2 BROWN ET AL VS ROSEMA ET AL BCV-19-100684