SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
DIONNE WALKER, ET AL., Plaintiff(s), vs. EDWARD WHEELER, ET AL., Defendant(s).
CASE NO: BC712586
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL
Dept. 3
1:30 p.m.
March 19, 2019
Defendant, Edward Wheeler propounded form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs on Plaintiffs on 11/08/18. On 2/08/19, after receiving no response to a meet and confer letter, Defendant filed these twelve motions to compel (each motion relates to one of the three discovery devices and one of the four named plaintiffs in the action).
On 3/07/19, Plaintiffs timely filed opposition to the motions. Plaintiffs concede they failed to timely respond, and indicate the error was the result of Plaintiffs’ attorney’s failure to calendar the response due date. The opposition is silent concerning Plaintiffs’ attorney’s receipt of the meet and confer letter.
The opposition asks the Court to deny the motion as moot be
Hearing Date
March 19, 2019
Type
Motor Vehicle - Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
DIONNE WALKER, ET AL., Plaintiff(s), vs. EDWARD WHEELER, ET AL., Defendant(s).
CASE NO: BC712586
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL
Dept. 3
1:30 p.m.
March 19, 2019
Defendant, Edward Wheeler propounded form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and RPDs on Plaintiffs on 11/08/18. On 2/08/19, after receiving no response to a meet and confer letter, Defendant filed these twelve motions to compel (each motion relates to one of the three discovery devices and one of the four named plaintiffs in the action).
On 3/07/19, Plaintiffs timely filed opposition to the motions. Plaintiffs concede they failed to timely respond, and indicate the error was the result of Plaintiffs’ attorney’s failure to calendar the response due date. The opposition is silent concerning Plaintiffs’ attorney’s receipt of the meet and confer letter.
The opposition asks the Court to deny the motion as moot be