MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS FOR BILLING RECORDS
Moreover, as the Court has previously noted, the motion is also denied as to Plaintiff’s request to compel the County’s compliance to its responses to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents Sets 4 and 6. These written discovery requests were not the subject matter of the Court’s November 12, 2025, ruling or any prior motion filed in this case.
Ruling Grant in part and deny in part.
4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS CVRI2505151 FLORES VS PEKUN FOR BILLING RECORDS Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Quash is granted in part and denied in part. The Court agrees that the subpoena is overbroad in seeking 10 years of medical records. However, the limitation Plaintiff requested was not reasonable either. The Court orders that the subpoenas be limited to medical records from 2020 through the present. No sanctions are appropriate.
5. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME DOUG WALL MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND CONSTRUCTION, INC. VS CVRI2507121 COMPLAINT ON COMPLAINT FOR GREEN ROCK OTHER COLLECTIONS INVESTORS, LLC Tentative Ruling:
A stipulation allowing the filing of an amended pleading was signed by the Court on 5/20/2026.
6. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME CORONEL-PAYAN VS CVRI2406513 MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES GENERAL MOTORS LLC Tentative Ruling:
Grant motion and award a lesser amount of $11,444.50 in fees and $600.50 in costs.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”