DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC23609187·sf·Civil·Discovery
Hearing 8 months agoGRANTED

PAUL VON WIEDENFIELD ET AL VS. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

Motion To Compel Further Responses From Defendant Abbott Laboratories For Production Of Documents

Hearing date
Dec 22, 2025
Department
301
Judge
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffPAUL VON WIEDENFIELD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE ESTATE OF LYNN VON WIEDENFIELD
PlaintiffWENDY SAUNDERS
PlaintiffSTEVEN FLACH
PlaintiffMICHELLE VON WIEDENFIELD
DefendantREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
DefendantABBOTT LABORATORIES

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC23609187 - December 22, 2025 Hearing date: December 22, 2025 Case number: CGC23609187 Case title: PAUL VON WIEDENFIELD ET AL VS. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL Case Number: | | CGC23609187 | Case Title: | | PAUL VON WIEDENFIELD ET AL VS. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-12-22 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Motion To Compel Further Responses From Defendant Abbott Laboratories For Production Of Documents | Rulings: | | Matter on the DISCOVERY / LAW AND MOTION calendar for Monday, Dec-22-2025, LINE 8. 2-PLAINTIFFS PAUL VON WIEDENFIELD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE ESTATE OF LYNN VON WIEDENFIELD, WENDY SAUNDERS, STEVEN FLACH, WENDY SAUNDERS, AND MICHELLE VON WIEDENFIELD'S Motion To Compel Further Responses From Defendant Abbott Laboratories For Production Of Documents.

Plaintiffs' motion to compel further responses to document requests 42-47 from defendant Abbott Laboratories is granted in full. Requests 42-47 seek discovery relevant information and all of Abbott's objections to those requests lack merit. Further code-compliant verified responses must be served and all responsive documents in Abbott's possession, custody and control must be produced no later than January 30, 2026.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/HEK) | |

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