BC694781 UMG RECORDINGS SERVICES INC VS ROK MOBILE INC
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses and Production of Documents
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted in part. ROK is ordered to produce documents, including a privilege for documents withheld on grounds of privilege, within fourteen days. ROK is also ordered to pay UMG Recording Services, Inc. sanctions of $2500 within 30 days.
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production
As the cross-complaint has been dismissed, ROK is no longer seeking lost profits as damages. The motion is denied as moot. The court cautions ROK that no evidence from the general ledger will be permitted at trial.
Motion to Compel Production of Documents
A motion to compel compliance as agreed with a request for production of documents is based upon a showing that the respondents failed to failed to permit an inspection ‘in accordance with that party's statement of compliance.’" (Standon Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d
Hearing Date
February 26, 2020
Type
Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence) (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
BC694781 UMG RECORDINGS SERVICES INC VS ROK MOBILE INC
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses and Production of Documents
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted in part. ROK is ordered to produce documents, including a privilege for documents withheld on grounds of privilege, within fourteen days. ROK is also ordered to pay UMG Recording Services, Inc. sanctions of $2500 within 30 days.
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production
As the cross-complaint has been dismissed, ROK is no longer seeking lost profits as damages. The motion is denied as moot. The court cautions ROK that no evidence from the general ledger will be permitted at trial.
Motion to Compel Production of Documents
A motion to compel compliance as agreed with a request for production of documents is based upon a showing that the respondents failed to failed to permit an inspection ‘in accordance with that party's statement of compliance.’" (Standon Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d