SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
MARY WALDEN, Plaintiff(s), vs. BINH NGUYEN, et al., Defendant(s).
CASE NO.: 18STCV01810
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
Dept. 27
10:00 a.m.
November 18, 2020
Plaintiff Mary Walden filed this action against Defendants Binh Nguyen, Kevin Nguyen, and Chut Truong arising from a October 30, 2016 motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff was allegedly rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Kevin Nguyen (“Defendant”) and alleges injuries and damages, including anxiety. Defendant propounded a second set of special interrogatories on February 14, 2020 and responses were received on April 6, 2020. After meeting and conferring, Plaintiff agreed to provide further responses and asserted objections for each interrogatory separately. Defendant argues the responses are insufficient and seeks an order compelling a further
Hearing Date
November 18, 2020
Type
Motor Vehicle - Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
MARY WALDEN, Plaintiff(s), vs. BINH NGUYEN, et al., Defendant(s).
CASE NO.: 18STCV01810
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
Dept. 27
10:00 a.m.
November 18, 2020
Plaintiff Mary Walden filed this action against Defendants Binh Nguyen, Kevin Nguyen, and Chut Truong arising from a October 30, 2016 motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff was allegedly rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Kevin Nguyen (“Defendant”) and alleges injuries and damages, including anxiety. Defendant propounded a second set of special interrogatories on February 14, 2020 and responses were received on April 6, 2020. After meeting and conferring, Plaintiff agreed to provide further responses and asserted objections for each interrogatory separately. Defendant argues the responses are insufficient and seeks an order compelling a further