DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC25622463·sf·Civil·Discovery Dispute
Hearing 3 months agoGRANTED. DeGiovanni shall respond forthwith and in no event later than two weeks from this order. Sanctions are denied.

BRIDGE MELLICHAMP ET AL VS. DIANNE MORRIS ET AL

Notice Of Motion To Compel Discovery Responses From Defendant Ann Marie Diogiovanni

Hearing date
May 22, 2026
Department
301
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffBridge Mellichamp
PlaintiffJason Rosenthal
PlaintiffAri Rosenthal Mellichamp
PlaintiffMaya Rosenthal Mellichamp
DefendantDianne Morris
DefendantAnn Marie Diogiovanni

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC25622463 - May 22, 2026 Hearing date: May 22, 2026 Case number: CGC25622463 Case title: BRIDGE MELLICHAMP ET AL VS. DIANNE MORRIS ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25622463 | Case Title: | | BRIDGE MELLICHAMP ET AL VS. DIANNE MORRIS ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-05-22 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion To Compel Discovery Responses From Defendant Ann Marie Diogiovanni | Rulings: | | Matter on calendar for Friday, May 22, 2026, Line 9, PLAINTIFF BRIDGE MELLICHAMP, JASON ROSENTHAL, ARI ROSENTHAL MELLICHAMP, MAYA ROSENTHAL MELLICHAMP's Motion To Compel Discovery Responses From Defendant Ann Marie Diogiovanni.

Plaintiffs Bridge Mellichamp and Jason Rosenthal's motion to compel responses to form interrogatories (set one), special interrogatories (set one), requests for production of documents (set one), and requests for admission (set one), from defendant Ann Marie DeGiovanni is granted. DeGiovanni shall respond forthwith and in no event later than two weeks from this order. Sanctions are denied. DeGiovanni failed to timely respond to the discovery and has waived objections. Pursuant to the parties' agreement (Wolcott Decl., Ex. 1), DeGiovanni may continue to assert privilege objections. Plaintiffs seek sanctions, but failed to specify the type of sanctions sought in their notice of motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., sec. 2023.040.) In any event the court would find sanctions unjust based on the facts set out in the Wolcott Declaration.

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/CVA). | |

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