Ruiz vs. Youstina
Motion to Compel Production/Inspection of Documents or Things; Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
106 Chang vs. HIOSSEN, Inc., a California corporation
2025-01535790 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint
VACATED PER STIP AND ORDER 108 Ruiz vs. Youstina
2025-01489341 1. Motion to Compel Production/Inspection of Documents or Things (ROA 42) 2. Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories (ROA 43)
CONTINUED PER STIP AND ORDER 109 Balt USA, LLC vs. Treadstone Medical LLC
2021-01237081 1. Motion to Seal (ROA 1814) 2. Motion to Seal (ROA 1875)
Plaintiff Balt USA, LLC’s two motions to seal filed at ROA #1814 and #1875 are GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s motion at ROA #1814 seeks to permanently seal the following:
(1) Exhibits 3-6, 40, 53, 73-74, 80-81, 89, 91, and 114 to the Omnibus Declaration Of Eric Kohan In Support Of Plaintiff Balt Usa, LLC’s Opposition To Motion For Summary Adjudication As To The Catheter Access Puncture Tool And Braided Stent (ROA #1812 [Kohan Omnibus Decl. 1]), including ROA #1819, 1826, 1831, and 1832 [additional exhibit volumes to Kohan Omnibus Decl. 1]); (2) Portions of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the Catheter Access Puncture Tool (ROA #1823), which reference those exhibits; (3) Portions of Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the Catheter Access Puncture Tool (ROA #1824), which reference those exhibits; (4) Portions of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion for Summary Adjudication as to the Braided Stent (ROA #1821), which reference those exhibits; and
Cited authorities
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?”