DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
2023CUPP012195·ventura·Civil·Discovery Dispute
Hearing todayMixed: Sustained in part and denied in part for James Wald and Natalie Wald; Denied for P.W.

JAMES WALD, et al. vs TRAVIS EDWARD MARTIN, et al.

Motion to Compel by Donna Martin for Further Responses to Form Interrogatories from all Plaintiffs

Hearing date
Sep 2, 2026
Department
42
Judge
Prevailing
Mixed

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffJames Wald
PlaintiffNatalie Wald
PlaintiffP.W.
DefendantTravis Edward Martin
DefendantDonna Martin

Ruling

2023CUPP012195: JAMES WALD, et al. vs TRAVIS EDWARD MARTIN, et al. 09/02/2026 in Department 42 Motion to Compel by Donna Martin for Further Responses to Form Interrogatories from all Plaintiffs

Motions to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories from 1) James Wald, 2) Natalie Wald and 3) P.W.

Tentative Rulings: 1) The Court sustains the objections and denies the motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories directed to James Wald except as to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1. As to that Form Interrogatory, the objections are overruled and Plaintiff James Wald shall provide a further response within 20 days. 2) The Court sustains the objections and denies the motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories directed to Natalie Wald except as to Form Interrogatory No. 15.1. As to that Form Interrogatory, the objections are overruled and Plaintiff Natalie Wald shall provide a further response within 20 days. 3) The Court sustains all objections and denies the motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories directed to minor P.W.

No sanctions are awarded.

1

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