DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV477921·santaclara·Civil·Discovery Dispute
Hearing about 2 months agoDENIED

Edward Jenkins v. Jim Kanomata et al.

Motion to compel discovery

Hearing date
Jul 21, 2026
Department
10
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffEdward Jenkins
DefendantGrace Kanomata
DefendantJim Kanomata

Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2210

DATE: July 21, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, you must call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

in Department 10. Defendant is ordered to file and serve an updated declaration with a proposed responsive pleading attached no later than July 29, 2026. Defendant is also ordered to provide notice of the continued motion hearing and the further case management conference. The court will prepare the order. Line 6 25CV469470 Brandon Spitzack v. Ford Click LINE 6 or scroll down for ruling. Motor Company et al. Line 7 25CV477921 Edward Jenkins v. Jim Plaintiff Edward Jenkins’s motion to compel discovery against Kanomata et al. defendant Grace Kanomata.

Notice is not proper; there is no proof of service of the motion. There is also no proof of service of summons on file for defendant Grace Kanomata. Discovery cannot commence until a defendant is served the summons and complaint. The motion also does not identify what type of discovery plaintiff seeks, citing only Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 (describing the general scope of discoverable matters). The motion is DENIED. The court will prepare the order. Line 8 26CV486559 Eric Wiedemann v.

Click LINE 8 or scroll down for ruling. Juggernaut Consulting, LLC et al.

- oo0oo -

9:01 A.M. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING Line 1 22CV403081 Camhong Pham v. David Abel Motion by defense counsel to be relieved as counsel of et al. record. Parties ordered to appear.

- oo0oo -

6

Cited authorities

Extracting citations 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?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share