MOTION TO STRIKE
true name.” (Ibid.) “Before a party to a civil action can be permitted to use a pseudonym, the trial court must conduct a hearing and apply the overriding interest test: A party’s request for anonymity should be granted only if the court finds that an overriding interest will likely be prejudiced without use of a pseudonym, and that it is not feasible to protect the interest with less impact on the constitutional right of access.” (Id. at 111.)
Motion to Strike is DENIED.
An Order to Show Cause re Use of Pseudonym is scheduled for July 28th, 8:30 a.m. Plaintiff directed to submit a brief addressing the rationale for permitting use of a pseudonym by July 17th. Defendant to file a response by July 23rd. No other briefing shall be permitted.
Case Management Conference is continued to 7.28.26.
5. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME LARA-MARTINEZ VS UNIVERSAL MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF CONSTRUCTION AND CVPS2508299 PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED ENGINEERING, A COMPLAINT CORPORATE ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling.
The hearing on the motion to strike is continued to 8.04.26. The parties are ordered to meet and confer via in person, phone or videoconferencing for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections raised in the motion to strike. As part of the meet and confer process, Defendant shall identify the specific language that it believes is subject to the motion and identify with legal support the basis of the deficiencies. Plaintiff shall provide legal support for their position that the pleading is legally sufficient or, in the alternative, how the complaint may be amended to cure any legal insufficiency.
After meeting and conferring, the parties shall 10 days before the continued hearing date set above do one of the following: (1) Defendant vacate the hearing on the motion to strike, and file an Answer; (2) The Parties file with the court a joint declaration stating the parties have agreed that Plaintiff will file an amended complaint before the date set forth above; or (3) The Parties file with the court a joint declaration stating the means by which the parties met and conferred and identifying the specific objections in the motion and supporting memorandum of points and authorities that the parties were unable to resolve. (CCP §430.41(a)(3), CCP §435.5
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?”
The court will not accept further briefing.
Case Management Conference rescheduled from 6.09.26 to 8.04.26 to be heard with the motion.
6. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME DEMURRER ON 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PRODUCT LIABILITY ZONES VS BOSTON (OVER $35,000) OF CHARLES ZONES CVPS2509590 SCIENTIFIC BY BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION CORPORATION, BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CARDIAC DIAGNOSTIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling.
The hearing on the demurrer is continued to 8.06.26. Boston Scientific is ordered to meet and confer via in person, phone, or videoconferencing with Plaintiff for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections raised in the demurrer. As part of the meet and confer process, Boston Scientific shall identify the specific causes of action that it believes are subject to demurrer and identify with legal support the basis of the deficiencies. Plaintiff shall provide legal support for its position that the pleading is legally sufficient or, in the alternative, how the complaint may be amended to cure any legal insufficiency.
After meeting and conferring, Boston Scientific shall have 10 days before the continued hearing date set above to do one of the following: 1) Vacate the hearing on the demurrer, and file an Answer; 2) File with the court a declaration stating the parties have agreed that Plaintiff will file an amended complaint before the date set forth above; or 3) File with the Court a declaration stating the means by which the parties met and conferred and identifying the specific objections in the demurrer and supporting memorandum of points and authorities that the parties were unable to resolve. (C.C.P. § 430.41(a)(3).)
The Court will not accept further briefing.
Case Management Conference rescheduled from 6.30.26 to 8.06.26 to be heard with the motion.
7. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENAS SERVED BY DEFENDANT CVPS2509844 CORTEZ VS CHAPMAN WILLIAM CHAPMAN AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS BY WENDY ALEJANDRA CORTEZ Tentative Ruling: The court is authorized to order a subpoena be quashed, modified, or that compliance be directed, with or without limitations, on the filing of a motion. (CCP §§ 1985.3, 1985.6, and 1987.1.) A motion to quash or modify may be granted on the grounds that the matters sought to be discovered are privileged, protected, or beyond the scope of discovery. (CCP § 2017.010; Rudnick v.
Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 924, 929.) Wendy brings this motion seeking to quash or modify five subpoenas because the documents sought are protected by his right to privacy and/or seek irrelevant information. Based on the opposition and reply, Chapman has withdrawn the offending original set of deposition subpoenas and has reissued new ones limiting the time and scope of the subpoenas. Based on this, the motion itself is moot other than the request sanctions. Under CCP § 1987.2(a), the Court has discretion to award sanctions, “if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena were oppressive.
In the declaration of Plaintiffs’ attorney, multiple emails and a voicemail were left for defense counsel prior to the filing of the motion without any response (Declaration of Erick Palafox, ¶¶ 5-6.) Per Defendant’s attorney, the subpoenas were withdrawn approximately two weeks after the initial motion to quash was filed, with Defendant reissuing new subpoenas (that are subject to another motion to quash currently set for July 13th, 2026). (Declaration of Charmaine V. Jackson, section I.)
Sanctions in the amount of $1,821.36 awarded (3.5 hours at $500/hour + $71.36 filing fee), payable in 30 days to Plaintiffs’ attorney.
Motion to Quash Amended Subpoenas and Case Management Conference confirmed for 7.13.26.
8. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME CVPS2509844 CORTEZ VS CHAPMAN MOTION TO COMPEL Tentative Ruling: Service of a proper deposition notice is sufficient to compel a party or the employee of a party to appear, testify, and produce records in their possession without a subpoena. (CCP §2025.280(a).) If a party deponent fails to appear or produce documents, without having serviced a valid objection under CCP § 2025.410, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance, testimony, and production of documents. (CCP § 2025.450(a).)
Such a motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under CCP § 2016.040, or when the deponent failed to attend the deposition, a declaration stating that the moving party contacted the deponent to inquiry about the nonappearance. (CCP § 2025.450(b)(2).) “Implicit in the requirement that counsel contact the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance