ALANAH STONE, Plaintiff, v. Los Angeles unified school district, Defendant.
Case No.: BC689978
Hearing Date: December 12, 2019
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further responses
NOTICE
The Court posts this tentative in advance of the hearing. Any party who does not appear at the hearing shall waive their right to be heard and shall submit to this, or any other, order the Court issues on the pending motion.
TENTATIVE ORDER
Plaintiff Alanah Stone (“Plaintiff”) allegedly was injured during a game of touch football at school and filed this action for negligence against Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (“Defendant”). Defendant provided a roster with the names of the other students who were present at the time of Plaintiff’s accident. However, Defendant has refused to provide contact information for the students. Plaintiff seeks to compel disclosure of this information, and Defendant opposes the motion on two grounds. First, Defendant argues that Plaint
Hearing Date
December 12, 2019
Type
Other PI/PD/WD (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
ALANAH STONE, Plaintiff, v. Los Angeles unified school district, Defendant.
Case No.: BC689978
Hearing Date: December 12, 2019
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further responses
NOTICE
The Court posts this tentative in advance of the hearing. Any party who does not appear at the hearing shall waive their right to be heard and shall submit to this, or any other, order the Court issues on the pending motion.
TENTATIVE ORDER
Plaintiff Alanah Stone (“Plaintiff”) allegedly was injured during a game of touch football at school and filed this action for negligence against Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District (“Defendant”). Defendant provided a roster with the names of the other students who were present at the time of Plaintiff’s accident. However, Defendant has refused to provide contact information for the students. Plaintiff seeks to compel disclosure of this information, and Defendant opposes the motion on two grounds. First, Defendant argues that Plaint