This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/27/2019 at 01:26:08 (UTC).

DARRYL BOLTON VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

Case Summary

On 02/13/2018 a Contract - Other Contract case was filed by DARRYL BOLTON against GENERAL MOTORS LLC in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3622

  • Filing Date:

    02/13/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

BOLTON DARRYL

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 10

GENERAL MOTORS LLC

 

Court Documents

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF DARRYL BOLTON

3/22/2018: ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF DARRYL BOLTON

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

6/27/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

8/6/2018: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

DECLARATION OF RODNEY GI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

8/6/2018: DECLARATION OF RODNEY GI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

8/6/2018: PLAINTIFF'S SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE

Reply

3/25/2019: Reply

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

4/2/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Order

4/2/2019: Order

Notice of Motion

6/21/2019: Notice of Motion

Notice

7/15/2019: Notice

Opposition

7/18/2019: Opposition

Opposition

7/18/2019: Opposition

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

7/19/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Minute Order

7/19/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

7/22/2019: Minute Order

Order

7/22/2019: Order

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

3/19/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

2/27/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

24 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/22/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Compliance) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2019
  • Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by Darryl Bolton (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Compliance with the C...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2019
  • Ruling: Motion to Compel Compliance with Discovery Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application ( for an Order to Continue Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Compliance) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2019
  • Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by Darryl Bolton (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2019
  • Temporary Protective Order; Filed by Darryl Bolton (Plaintiff); General Motors LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (for an Order to Continue Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Compliance; Deem Defendant's Opposition as Timely; and Extend Defendant's Compliance Deadline for Production of Documents for 21 Days); Filed by General Motors LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/19/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Defendant's Ex Parte Application for an Order to C...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/18/2019
  • Declaration (of Esther Kim in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition for Ex Parte); Filed by Darryl Bolton (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
33 More Docket Entries
  • 06/27/2018
  • CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Darryl Bolton (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2018
  • Answer; Filed by General Motors LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2018
  • ANSWER OF DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS LLC TO UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF DARRYL BOLTON

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Darryl Bolton (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Darryl Bolton (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC693622    Hearing Date: November 25, 2019    Dept: 48

(1) MOTION FOR TERMINATING, ISSUE AND/OR EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS;

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

MOVING PARTY: (1) & (2) Plaintiff Darryl Bolton

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) & (2) Defendant General Motors LLC

PROOF OF SERVICE:

The attorney-client and attorney work product privileges are SUSTAINED to the extent responsive testimony implicates these privileges.

Defendant’s remaining objections are OVERRULED for the reasons discussed above.

¿ Requests For Production Nos. 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24: GRANT.

In the separate statement, Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for production of the documents requested. The requests are limited by nature, to the extent they pertain to Plaintiff’s vehicle and may reveal the identities of witnesses.

As to the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product, the objection is SUSTAINED to the extent responsive documents come within these privileges. The PMK is to produce a privilege log identifying documents withheld on the basis of either privilege.

Defendant’s objections are OVERRULED as being inapplicable to these particular categories. As to confidential or trade secret information, Defendant has not demonstrated that confidential or trade secret information would be disclosed.

[T]he party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing its existence. (Evid. Code, § 405; ALRB, supra, 175 Cal.App.3d at p. 715.) Thereafter, the party seeking discovery must make a prima facie, particularized showing that the information sought is relevant and necessary to the proof of, or defense against, a material element of one or more causes of action presented in the case, and that it is reasonable to conclude that the information sought is essential to a fair resolution of the lawsuit. It is then up to the holder of the privilege to demonstrate any claimed disadvantages of a protective order. Either party may propose or oppose less intrusive alternatives to disclosure of the trade secret, but the burden is upon the trade secret claimant to demonstrate that an alternative to disclosure will not be unduly burdensome to the opposing side and  that it will maintain the same fair balance in the litigation that would have been achieved by disclosure.

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1393.

¿ Request For Production No. 9: GRANT.

Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause in the separate statement.

If Defendant has responsive documents in its possession, it is required to produce it with the PMK. Simply telling Plaintiff to go get shop manuals himself does not identify all responsive documents.


[1] The separate statement skips No. 19, but includes two No. 20s.