Weinstein

Weinstein v. Blumberg

Good Law
235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 658·25 Cal. App. 5th 316
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 17, 2018B282267California2,048 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Chaney, J.

*318 Resch Polster & Berger (RPB) appeals from an order granting discovery sanctions after a motion to compel further responses to a deposition notice. Counsel for Isaac Blumberg, Eytan Ribner, and Blumberg Ribner, Inc. (collectively BRI) served a notice of motion and motion to compel within a statutory deadline, but did not serve any of the required supporting papers upon which the motion was based until 15 court days before the hearing. RPB contends the motion was untimely *660 and that the sanctions order should therefore be reversed. We agree.

BACKGROUND

Zev Weinstein (through his counsel, RPB) filed suit against BRI on June 20, 2016. On June 27, BRI noticed Weinstein's deposition and propounded 212 requests for production of documents to be produced at the deposition. BRI deposed Weinstein on July 28 and 29, 2016.

Following the deposition, BRI and Weinstein met and conferred regarding Weinstein's deposition responses and responses to BRI's document requests. As part of their meet and confer process, the parties agreed that BRI's deadline to file any motion to compel regarding Weinstein's deposition would be December 6, 2016.

BRI filed its notice of motion and motion to…

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.