Nature of Proceedings: Motion Protective Order
This is Narzal Cabaron’s motion for a protective order.
Ruling: Granted based upon the terms and conditions set out below.
Analysis: Narzal Cabaron (“Narzal”) filed an ex parte motion and set it for hearing on April 9, 2014; the Court shortened time so the motion would be heard on April 15; the present deposition dates for April 17 and 18 were moved to May 8 and 9; the nature and scope and even the eventuality of the depositions were set off to permit a May 1, 2014 CMC (at 8:30am) to discuss the outcome of the “testing” that can be completed by April 25; the parties were invited to meet and confer prior to the April 29 to discuss their position but that the Court intended to wait until May 1 to permit the “testing” results to be submitted; the ex parte application papers constituted the moving papers and dates were set for response and reply.
The motion was made pursuant to CCP § 166(a) and California Rules of Court 3.1201; contends th
Hearing Date
April 15, 2014
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Nature of Proceedings: Motion Protective Order
This is Narzal Cabaron’s motion for a protective order.
Ruling: Granted based upon the terms and conditions set out below.
Analysis: Narzal Cabaron (“Narzal”) filed an ex parte motion and set it for hearing on April 9, 2014; the Court shortened time so the motion would be heard on April 15; the present deposition dates for April 17 and 18 were moved to May 8 and 9; the nature and scope and even the eventuality of the depositions were set off to permit a May 1, 2014 CMC (at 8:30am) to discuss the outcome of the “testing” that can be completed by April 25; the parties were invited to meet and confer prior to the April 29 to discuss their position but that the Court intended to wait until May 1 to permit the “testing” results to be submitted; the ex parte application papers constituted the moving papers and dates were set for response and reply.
The motion was made pursuant to CCP § 166(a) and California Rules of Court 3.1201; contends th