chelsea gottfurcht, Plaintiff, v. rst & assoc., et al., Defendants.
Case No.: 18STCV03275
Hearing Date: December 2, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
motion to compel discovery responses
Plaintiff Chelsea Gottfurcht (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel responses from Defendant RST & Assoc. (“Defendant”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”); and (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”). As an initial matter, Defendant filed one motion to compel responses to three separate sets of discovery. Therefore, the Court orders Plaintiff to pay an additional $120 in filing fees. (Gov. Code, § 70617, subd. (a).) If Plaintiff fails to do so, this order shall be unenforceable.
Plaintiff served the discovery on Defendant by mail on June 4, 2019. Defendant’s responses were due by July 9, 2019. As of the filing date of these motions, Plaintiff has not received responses from Defendant. Accordingly, the motion to compel responses to the RP
Hearing Date
December 02, 2020
Type
Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
chelsea gottfurcht, Plaintiff, v. rst & assoc., et al., Defendants.
Case No.: 18STCV03275
Hearing Date: December 2, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
motion to compel discovery responses
Plaintiff Chelsea Gottfurcht (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel responses from Defendant RST & Assoc. (“Defendant”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”); and (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”). As an initial matter, Defendant filed one motion to compel responses to three separate sets of discovery. Therefore, the Court orders Plaintiff to pay an additional $120 in filing fees. (Gov. Code, § 70617, subd. (a).) If Plaintiff fails to do so, this order shall be unenforceable.
Plaintiff served the discovery on Defendant by mail on June 4, 2019. Defendant’s responses were due by July 9, 2019. As of the filing date of these motions, Plaintiff has not received responses from Defendant. Accordingly, the motion to compel responses to the RP