Apr 27, 2015

TENTATIVE RULINGS

LAW & MOTION CALENDAR

Wednesday, April 22, 2015, 3:00 p.m.

Courtroom 16 – Judge Elliot Lee Daum

3035 Cleveland Avenue, Suite 200, Santa Rosa

 

 

CourtCall is available for all Law & Motion appearances, EXCEPT parties in small claims cases and motions for claims of exemption which are mandatory appearances.   Please contact CourtCall directly at (888) 882-6878.

 

The following tentative rulings will become the ruling of the Court unless a party desires to be heard.  If you desire to appear and present oral argument as to any motion, YOU MUST notify the Court by telephone at (707) 521-6547, and all other opposing parties of your intent to appear by 4:00 p.m. today,  April 21, 2015.  Parties in small claims cases and motions for claims of exemption are exempt from this requirement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. MCV-230637; Porfolio Recovery v. Lowry

Under CCP §§2030.300(c) and 2024.020, Defendant’s motion is denied.  She waived her right to compel and the motion is untimely.  In addition, CCP §94(a)(1) explicitly prohibits subparts.  The interrogatories which Defendant seeks to compel responses contain subparts. Defendant has not sufficiently stated reasoning as to why she may serve Interrogatories with subparts in a limited civil case in violation of CCP §94(a)(1).

 

 

2. MCV-233383; Amco v. Moreno

Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment is granted.  The Judgment entered on February 25, 2015 is hereby vacated.  Defendants shall have 30 days to file their answer.

 

 

3. MSC-184842; Zitkovich v. Ambright

Appearance required.

 

 

4. SCV-251845; Wolf v. Thomas

The court denies Cross-Defendant Johnella Thomas’ Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement, withouth prejudice.


 

5. SCV-255040; Bertolli Properties v. Headwaters

Appearance required.

 

 

6.  SCV-256309, Waters v. City of Petaluma

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel further responses is denied as to the investigative report of Attorney Amy Oppenheimer on the grounds that the report is confidential pursuant to the attorney work product doctrine and is also protected by the attorney client privilege.  Plaintiff has not presented sufficient evidence to overcome the statutory presumption that the report is protected.  Plaintiff  also provides no evidence in support of her argument that the City has waived the privilege or the work product doctrine. 

 

Additionally, Plaintiff’s Deposition Notice Categories Nos. 3(a)-3(g) are vague and ambiguous, and specifically as to the phrase “concerning her treatment” and the term “complaint.”  The request is specifically overly broad and unduly burdensome as it fails to state a time frame or any recipient of said complaint.  The request also appears to seek personal opinions and interpretation of the facts within the purview of, ostensibly, every single employee who has ever come into contact with Plaintiff, and who may have possibly heard her “complain” about the City.  The requests also seek confidential personnel information of third parties.  Finally, the requests seek information that is subject to the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.

 

Without waiving these objections, the City responds that it has offered to produce a PMK regarding the City’s policies and procedures, a copy of the only formal complaint Plaintiff ever lodged with the City (after her separation), and copies of any City policies regarding the receipt of complaints regarding harassment or discrimination.  The City has also offered to produce two of Plaintiff’s former supervisors in their individual capacities.  

 

 

© 2015 Superior Court of Sonoma County