DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
CV0005564·marin·Civil·Discovery Dispute
Mixed

Vladimir Myasnyankin v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, et al

Motion – Compel Answers to Interrogatories – Discovery Facilitator Program; Motion – Compel Answers to Interrogatories – Discovery Facilitator Program; Motion – Compel Answers to Interrogatories – Discovery Facilitator Program

Hearing date
May 12, 2026
Department
A
Prevailing
Mixed

Motion type

Motion to Compel Further ResponsesMotion to Compel Discovery

Parties

PlaintiffVladimir Myasnyankin
DefendantNationwide Mutual Insurance Company
DefendantLathrum
DefendantAustin

Attorneys

Ruling

2) MOTION – COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES – DISCOVERY FACILITATOR PROGRAM 3) MOTION – COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES – DISCOVERY FACILITATOR PROGRAM

The Court expresses its appreciation for the assistance of Steven Perl, Esq., the Court’s discovery facilitator, in resolving much of this discovery dispute.

1. Defendant Nationwide’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 27-30 is granted in part. Plaintiff shall respond to the interrogatories regarding all persons or entities who were engaged in the physical inspection, remediation, demolition, construction, repair and/or renovation of the property during the time period. Plaintiffs have made no showing of burden. However, upon such a showing the Court will consider setting an exemption for de minimis work on the property.

2. Defendants Lathrum and Austin’s motion to compel Request for Production No. 3 is denied. The request is overly broad and intrusive, and Defendants have failed to demonstrate a compelling need for the information.

3. Defendant Nationwide’s motion to compel Request for Production No. 13 is granted in part. Plaintiffs have agreed to produce, and are ordered to produce, forms W-2, 1099, and Schedule C for the time period. There is no basis to require the production of tax returns.

All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(B) to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear in person or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with the announced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11.

The Zoom appearance information for May, 2026 is as follows: https://marin-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1605267272?pwd=908CbP6TV2mhCAyai1nzo6lyz2dKaw.1

Meeting ID: 160 526 7272 Passcode: 026935

If you are unable to join by video, you may join by telephone by calling (669) 254-5252 and using the above-provided passcode. Zoom appearance information may also be found on the Court’s website: https://www.marin.courts.ca.gov

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Source

Share