Motion to Compel Further Response to Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
of service could be filed. However, there is no proof of service of this motion. As such, the court DENIES Respondent’s motion for attorney fees and costs.
3 Ahmed – Probate; 30-2023-01338597
4 Smith – Trust; 30-2023-01355718 Smith – Trust (2023-01355718) Motion to Compel
Petitioner Brian Alexander Smith’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records (Cheryl L. Barrett) (ROA 565) is DENIED.
By this motion, Petitioner seeks to compel Ferruzo & Ferruzo to produce documents in response to a subpoena, even though their custodian of records provided an affidavit stating the firm did not have the subpoenaed documents. The motion does not, however, the subject subpoena. Accordingly, the court has nothing upon which to issue an order compelling appearance and production. Further, Ferruzo & Ferruzo’s opposition is supported by a declaration from Cheryl L. Barrett attesting neither she nor she nor the firm has any documents responsive to the subpoena. Accordingly, there is nothing for the court to compel.
The court will provide notice.
5 Corona – Guardianship; 30-2024-01444318 Corona – Guardianship (2024-01444318) Motion to Be Relieved
Yerangi & Associates’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Juan Chacon and Edward Schrum (ROA 59) is GRANTED.
The court will sign the Proposed Order. Moving counsel is ORDERED to give notice to all parties to this action and file proof of service of the court’s
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”