Trinh vs. Chan

Code Civ. Proc., § 1908 does not preclude discovery or limit the scope of discovery. Rather, Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010 is quite broad and provides that “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

Moreover, it is Plaintiffs who brought this action alleging elder abuse, undue influence, incapacity, etc. in support of their claims of quiet title and requests for damages for conversion and negligence.

Given this, the Court finds that Defendant has shown good cause to compel further responses.

Defendant’s separate request for the Court order Plaintiffs to provide medical authorizations for Decedent’s records is denied. There is no legal authority cited that provides that a Court can compel a party to sign such authorizations.

Plaintiffs are ordered to serve further responses within 20 days of service of notice of this ruling.

Defendant shall give notice.

10 Trinh vs. Chan

2023-01342035 Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication

Continued to 10/05/2026 11 Valdez vs. Physician Partners of America, LLC

2024-01437568 Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication

Off Calendar 12 Wilson vs. Dan

2025-01523063 Motion for Order Requiring Plaintiffs to Furnish Security Bond

Defendants Claudiu Dan, Ariel Corral, Julio Lopez, Martin Martinez, and Samuel Membreno’s renewed motion for order requiring Plaintiffs to furnish security bond is denied.

Procedural Issues The Court notes that there are valid objections to the length of the “motion” and Defendants’ supporting evidence, not to mention the tardiness of the reply papers. However, in the interests of justice, and for sufficient “good cause,” the Court exercises its discretion to