CASE NAME: SWIFTAIR v. ROW 44, INC.
CASE NUMBER: SC122964 COMPLAINT FILED: 8/14/14
HEARING DATE: 11/2/18
TRIAL DATE: 12/10/18
NOTICE: OK
______________________________________________________________________________
MOTION 2: Defendant Southwest Airlines Co.’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Plaintiff SwiftAir’s Response to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents (Set One and Two)
TENTATIVE RULING
Merits
Defendants Southwest now move for an order compelling compliance with Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production Documents. Plaintiff opposes the motion. A reply was fied.
In support of the motion, Defendant submits evidence that Plaintiff’s counsel admitted during the October 27, 2017 hearing that certain responsive documents had not been produced as result of “glitch.” Plaintiff’s counsel made representations that this issue was being resolved. However no further responsive documents had been produced since this hearing.
The court agrees that th
Hearing Date
November 02, 2018
Type
Contractual Fraud (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
CASE NAME: SWIFTAIR v. ROW 44, INC.
CASE NUMBER: SC122964 COMPLAINT FILED: 8/14/14
HEARING DATE: 11/2/18
TRIAL DATE: 12/10/18
NOTICE: OK
______________________________________________________________________________
MOTION 2: Defendant Southwest Airlines Co.’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Plaintiff SwiftAir’s Response to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents (Set One and Two)
TENTATIVE RULING
Merits
Defendants Southwest now move for an order compelling compliance with Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Requests for Production Documents. Plaintiff opposes the motion. A reply was fied.
In support of the motion, Defendant submits evidence that Plaintiff’s counsel admitted during the October 27, 2017 hearing that certain responsive documents had not been produced as result of “glitch.” Plaintiff’s counsel made representations that this issue was being resolved. However no further responsive documents had been produced since this hearing.
The court agrees that th