- 7 -
each and every person expected to be called as a witness and the
substance of his or her expected testimony.
In response thereto, petitioner agreed to a meeting and
concluded his letter dated May 9, 1997, with two similar
discovery requests. Respondent failed to comply with
petitioner’s discovery requests. The Court did not receive a
formal request from petitioner to enforce his discovery requests.
By order dated March 17, 1997, this case was continued from
the Court’s trial session in Los Angeles, California, on March
17, 1997, and recalendared for June 2, 1997.
Rule 70 contains general provisions for discovery in this
Court. Rule 70(a)(2) provides, in part: “Discovery shall not be
commenced, without leave of the Court, before the expiration of
30 days after joinder of issue * * * and shall be completed,
unless otherwise authorized by the Court, no later than 45 days
prior to the date set for call of the case from a trial
calendar.” Rule 72(a) provides that “Any party may, without
leave of Court, serve on any other party a request to” produce
documents. Rule 72(b), however, provides, in part: “The party
upon whom the request is served shall serve a written response
within 30 days after service of the request. The Court may allow
a shorter or longer time.” Rule 72(b) further provides:
To obtain a ruling on an objection by the responding
party, on a failure to respond, or on a failure to
produce or permit inspection, the requesting party
shall file an appropriate motion with the Court and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011