Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Alexander Rosteck, Plaintiff,
Case No. 19STCV24592 v. [Tentative] Ruling
Sandy Alprecht, Defendant.
Hearing Date: November 20, 2020
Department 49, Judge Stuart M. Rice
(1) Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order
Moving Party: Defendant Sandy Alprecht
Responding Party: Plaintiff Alexander Rosteck
Ruling: Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order is granted solely as to withdraw the defective deposition subpoena. Requests for sanctions are denied.
As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff contends that this Court should deny the motion because Defendant did not bring a separate motion for a protective order for each discovery device at issue. While separate motions are required for compelling discovery responses, Plaintiff provides no grounds for the proposition that a Court may not fashion a protective order affecting multiple discovery devices from one set of moving papers.
Defendant moves for a protective order prohibiting Plai
Hearing Date
November 20, 2020
Type
Other Contract Dispute (not breach/insurance/fraud/negligence) (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Alexander Rosteck, Plaintiff,
Case No. 19STCV24592 v. [Tentative] Ruling
Sandy Alprecht, Defendant.
Hearing Date: November 20, 2020
Department 49, Judge Stuart M. Rice
(1) Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order
Moving Party: Defendant Sandy Alprecht
Responding Party: Plaintiff Alexander Rosteck
Ruling: Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order is granted solely as to withdraw the defective deposition subpoena. Requests for sanctions are denied.
As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff contends that this Court should deny the motion because Defendant did not bring a separate motion for a protective order for each discovery device at issue. While separate motions are required for compelling discovery responses, Plaintiff provides no grounds for the proposition that a Court may not fashion a protective order affecting multiple discovery devices from one set of moving papers.
Defendant moves for a protective order prohibiting Plai