Marriage of Black CA4/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 25, 2024G062681California3,624 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Neither party provided a summary of the historical facts of this matter. In 2014, Max filed for dissolution. Trial was originally set for June 2015. By stipulation, in 2016, discovery was reopened and trial was set for April 2017. On July 2, 2019, Christienne served a request for production of documents, which included 35 categories of documents. At a hearing in August 2019, the court agreed to reopen discovery until 30 days prior to trial. Another request for discovery was apparently sent in October 2019. This demand included 16 more categories of documents. In July 2020, Christienne filed a motion to compel. At the hearing on October 30, there was confusion over whether discovery was open or closed. The court did not have the transcript of the August 2019 hearing before it. Max argued that the July 2, 2019 discovery was propounded before any reopening of discovery in August 2019. Christienne’s counsel offered to simply re-serve the same discovery if the court was inclined to find the

1 We refer to the parties by their first names due to their common surname for the ease of the reader and to avoid confusion.

2 discovery had to be served after the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.