Tentative Ruling: In this inverse condemnation action plaintiff Lee Tyler seeks to compel further responses to certain requests for admission and special interrogatories, and for more organization of produced documents. (The Court notes plaintiff’s labeling of the motion as one to “compel production” oversimplifies the relief sought.) Plaintiff additionally seeks imposition of “monetary and contempt sanctions”; the Court notes its consideration of any sanctions involves provisions of the discovery act contained within the Code of Civil Procedure as there is no contempt proceeding before the Court. Defendants have not filed any opposition to plaintiff’s motion. For purposes of ruling on this motion, the Court finds that each type of involved discovery requires a separate framework of analysis.
Regarding requests for admission, plaintiff contends defendants’ responses to requests 21, 22, and 23 improperly assert objections of “vague and ambiguous” and “will not lead to admissible eviden
Hearing Date
June 22, 2018
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Tentative Ruling: In this inverse condemnation action plaintiff Lee Tyler seeks to compel further responses to certain requests for admission and special interrogatories, and for more organization of produced documents. (The Court notes plaintiff’s labeling of the motion as one to “compel production” oversimplifies the relief sought.) Plaintiff additionally seeks imposition of “monetary and contempt sanctions”; the Court notes its consideration of any sanctions involves provisions of the discovery act contained within the Code of Civil Procedure as there is no contempt proceeding before the Court. Defendants have not filed any opposition to plaintiff’s motion. For purposes of ruling on this motion, the Court finds that each type of involved discovery requires a separate framework of analysis.
Regarding requests for admission, plaintiff contends defendants’ responses to requests 21, 22, and 23 improperly assert objections of “vague and ambiguous” and “will not lead to admissible eviden