7/14/2020
Dept. 73
Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding
HIDDEN JEANS, INC. v. MASSACHUSETTS BAY INSURANCE, CO., et. al. (19STCV16863)
Counsel for Plaintiff: Gregory Kim
Counsel for Defendants: Jean Daly, Tyler Sanchez, Suzanna Harman (Murchison & Cumming, LLP)
1. PLAINTIFF’S Motion to compel FURTHER RESPONSES TO SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; SANCTIONS (filed 5/22/2020)
2. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION (filed 4/1/2020)
Motion to Compel Further
· RFP No. 5. The court grants the motion in part. The court orders Defendants to serve further responses to RFP No. 5 that withdraws all objections except relevance objections. The court orders production of the Table of Contents, a meet and confer thereafter, and, failing agreement, an in camera review of the unredacted documents of the remaining disputed items. Given Defendants’ representation to the court that Defendants only redacted based on relevance objections,
Hearing Date
July 14, 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/.
7/14/2020
Dept. 73
Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding
HIDDEN JEANS, INC. v. MASSACHUSETTS BAY INSURANCE, CO., et. al. (19STCV16863)
Counsel for Plaintiff: Gregory Kim
Counsel for Defendants: Jean Daly, Tyler Sanchez, Suzanna Harman (Murchison & Cumming, LLP)
1. PLAINTIFF’S Motion to compel FURTHER RESPONSES TO SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; SANCTIONS (filed 5/22/2020)
2. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION (filed 4/1/2020)
Motion to Compel Further
· RFP No. 5. The court grants the motion in part. The court orders Defendants to serve further responses to RFP No. 5 that withdraws all objections except relevance objections. The court orders production of the Table of Contents, a meet and confer thereafter, and, failing agreement, an in camera review of the unredacted documents of the remaining disputed items. Given Defendants’ representation to the court that Defendants only redacted based on relevance objections,