More from ROA #222
Don't quote me on any of this because I am not an attorney and this is only the first filing that I have read so I am still figuring out what is going on.
It appears that Dispense Labs had filed for discovery requesting certain financial documents from Medbox. Medbox didn't want to produce these documents so they basically ignored the request. They eventually responded to the request by invoking "their right to privacy under the California Constitution". The problem is that Medbox waited so long to respond that the objection was waived because it was not timely.
It also looks like Medbox pissed off the Judge at some point because they were ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $1225.
This is the ruling from 12/02/2013 Court session:
Tentative Ruling for C26on l)ecember 212013
No. 4z PVM Intentional Inc. v. DeRobbio
The motion to compel further responses to production requests without objection is
GRANTED. Total sanctions in the sum of $1225 are awarded against the
responding parties. Supplemental responses are to be served within fifteen (15)
days. Sanctions are to be paid within 20 days. The moving party is to give notice.
When they responded without objection, Cross-defendants waived the right to
object. C.C.P. $ 2031.230 requires that "[a] representation of inability to comply
with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall
affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to
comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to
comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been
destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in
the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set
forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or
believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or
category of item.
The discovery was served over six months ago. On the eve of the hearing
(llll9ll3), Cross-defendants cannot avoid a ruling by service of last minute
responses that incorporate multiple objections, even though objections were
waived by failure to respond timely. C.C.P. $2031.300.
In addition, the supplemental responses appear evasive. Mr. Mehdizadeh responds
for himself personally and there is no response from any entity. Delay renders it
impossible to determine whether Mr. Bedrick's responses do not suffer from the
same uncertainty.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
