David Abrams v. Regents of the Regents of California, 19STCP03648
Tentative decision on: (1) Abram’s motion for protective order: denied; (2) Abrams’ motion to compel further responses to interrogatories: mostly denied; (3) Regents’ motion to compel further responses to interrogatories: granted in part; (4) Regents’ motion to compel further responses to requests for production: denied
Petitioner/Plaintiff David Abrams (“Abrams”) moves for a protective order directing Respondent/Defendant Regents of the Regents of California (“Regents”) to withdraw all discovery requests that concern his personal history, activities, and motivation. Abrams also moves to compel the Regents to provide further responses to his Interrogatories. Regents separately move to compel Abrams to provide further responses to its Interrogatories and to provide further responses to the Regents’ request for production of documents.
The court has read and considered the moving papers, oppositions, and replies, and re
Hearing Date
August 20, 2020
Type
Other Writ /Judicial Review (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
David Abrams v. Regents of the Regents of California, 19STCP03648
Tentative decision on: (1) Abram’s motion for protective order: denied; (2) Abrams’ motion to compel further responses to interrogatories: mostly denied; (3) Regents’ motion to compel further responses to interrogatories: granted in part; (4) Regents’ motion to compel further responses to requests for production: denied
Petitioner/Plaintiff David Abrams (“Abrams”) moves for a protective order directing Respondent/Defendant Regents of the Regents of California (“Regents”) to withdraw all discovery requests that concern his personal history, activities, and motivation. Abrams also moves to compel the Regents to provide further responses to his Interrogatories. Regents separately move to compel Abrams to provide further responses to its Interrogatories and to provide further responses to the Regents’ request for production of documents.
The court has read and considered the moving papers, oppositions, and replies, and re