On February 04, 2014 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Liu, Li Zhu,
Li Zhu Liu,
and
Alfred Bianchi,
Alfred Bianchi As Trustee Of The Bianchi Trust Dated November 13, 2006,
Lois Bianchi,
Lois Bianchi As Trustee Of The Bianchi Trust Dated November 13, 2006,
for Other PI/PD/WD Tort
in the District Court of Alameda County.
Preview
|
muon 029* .
|
AARON YU (SBN 304882)
FILED
WonG & ASSOCIATES
413 Third Street
Oakland, CA 94607 ALAMEDA COUNTY
Telephone: (510) 451-2124
Facsimile: (510) 451-2448 APR QO § 2017
CLERK OF i HE»iHERIOR COURT
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
LI ZHU LIU PY Ary
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA- CIVIL UNLIMITED
10
11
12
LI ZHU LIU, Case No.: RG 14712640
nce
13
Neat!
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
eet
14 Plaintiff, TERMINATING SANCTIONS, BUT
St!
GRANTING EVIDENTIARY
Set
15
Vv. SANCTIONS
See
ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI,
See
16
DATE: 04/05/17
nae
as trustee of the Bianchi Trust dated November:
DEPT: 20
Nene
17 13, 2006 and does 1-10 TIME: 11:00 a.m.
JUDGE: Hon. Paul Herbert
eh
18
Defendants.
Action filed: 02/04/2014
19
Trial Date: 04/11/2017
a di
20
ie
i
21
i
22
23
24 The Motion for Terminating Sanctions was heard at the hearing noticed for and held on shortened
25 time on April 5, 2017, at 11:00 AM before the Honorable Paul Herbert in Department 20 of the
26
Alameda County Superior Court. Aaron Yu appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. No one appeared
27
on behalf of the defendants.
28
-1-
Order Denying Motion for Terminating Sanctions but Granting Evidentiary Sanctions
After full consideration filed in support of the Motion, the declaration in support of the
Motion, and the oral argument of counsel, and good cause appearing therefore,
IT IS ORDERED THAT plaintiff's Motion for Terminating Sanctions isDENIED in part, and|
GRANTED in part. The court finds that defendants’ conduct in ignoring plaintiff's discovery
requests instead justifies the imposition of evidentiary sanctions prohibiting defendants from offering
testimony or other evidence at the trialof this matter on the areas of covered by the discovery
requests. Thus, the court hereby GRANTS plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 1, precluding
defendants’ use at trial of documents not previously produced or not identified in response to
10
plaintiff's prior discovery requests. Likewise, the court hereby GRANTS plaintiff's Motion in
11
Limine No. 2,precluding defendants from calling witnesses at trialnot previously identified by
12
13 defendants in response to plaintiff's prior discovery requests.
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
17
DATED: April 5, 2017
18
19
20
Jat L. Medex
21
22
23 Hon. Judge Paul Herbert
24
25
26
27
28
~2-
Order Denying Motion for Terminating Sanctions but Granting Evidentiary Sanctions
Document Filed Date
April 05, 2017
Case Filing Date
February 04, 2014
Category
Other PI/PD/WD Tort
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
| muon 029* . | AARON YU (SBN 304882) FILED WonG & ASSOCIATES 413 Third Street Oakland, CA 94607 ALAMEDA COUNTY Telephone: (510) 451-2124 Facsimile: (510) 451-2448 APR QO § 2017 CLERK OF i HE»iHERIOR COURT Attorneys for Plaintiff, LI ZHU LIU PY Ary SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA- CIVIL UNLIMITED 10 11 12 LI ZHU LIU, Case No.: RG 14712640 nce 13 Neat! ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR eet 14 Plaintiff, TERMINATING SANCTIONS, BUT St! GRANTING EVIDENTIARY Set 15 Vv. SANCTIONS See ALFRED BIANCHI AND LOIS BIANCHI, See 16 DATE: 04/05/17 nae as trustee of the Bianchi Trust dated November: DEPT: 20 Nene 17 13, 2006 and does 1-10 TIME: 11:00 a.m. JUDGE: Hon. Paul Herbert eh 18 Defendants. Action filed: 02/04/2014 19 Trial Date: 04/11/2017 a di 20 ie i 21 i 22 23 24 The Motion for Terminating Sanctions was heard at the hearing noticed for and held on shortened 25 time on April 5, 2017, at 11:00 AM before the Honorable Paul Herbert in Department 20 of the 26 Alameda County Superior Court. Aaron Yu appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. No one appeared 27 on behalf of the defendants. 28 -1- Order Denying Motion for Terminating Sanctions but Granting Evidentiary Sanctions After full consideration filed in support of the Motion, the declaration in support of the Motion, and the oral argument of counsel, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS ORDERED THAT plaintiff's Motion for Terminating Sanctions isDENIED in part, and| GRANTED in part. The court finds that defendants’ conduct in ignoring plaintiff's discovery requests instead justifies the imposition of evidentiary sanctions prohibiting defendants from offering testimony or other evidence at the trialof this matter on the areas of covered by the discovery requests. Thus, the court hereby GRANTS plaintiff's Motion in Limine No. 1, precluding defendants’ use at trial of documents not previously produced or not identified in response to 10 plaintiff's prior discovery requests. Likewise, the court hereby GRANTS plaintiff's Motion in 11 Limine No. 2,precluding defendants from calling witnesses at trialnot previously identified by 12 13 defendants in response to plaintiff's prior discovery requests. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 17 DATED: April 5, 2017 18 19 20 Jat L. Medex 21 22 23 Hon. Judge Paul Herbert 24 25 26 27 28 ~2- Order Denying Motion for Terminating Sanctions but Granting Evidentiary Sanctions