Rosinski, Melinda et al. v. Piercey, Matthew et al.
Amended Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Propounded to Defendant Piercey and Associates LTD; Amended Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Special Interrogatories Propounded to Defendant Rodney Piercey; Amended Motion to Compel Initial Responses from Defendant Rodney Piercey and for Monetary Sanctions; Amended Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents Propounded on Piercey and Associates; Amended Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Form Interrogatory 15.1
Motion type
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
Parties
Ruling
Judge Benson – Law & Motion – Wednesday, May 20, 2026 @ 9:00 AM
1-5. 23CV00528 Rosinski, Melinda et al. v. Piercey, Matthew et al.
EVENT: (1) Amended Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Propounded to Defendant Piercey and Associates LTD (Continued from 5/6/26) (2) Amended Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Special Interrogatories Propounded to Defendant Rodney Piercey (Continued from 5/6/26) (3) Amended Motion to Compel Initial Responses from Defendant Rodney Piercey and for Monetary Sanctions (Continued from 5/6/26) (4) Amended Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents Propounded on Piercey and Associates (Continued from 5/6/26) (5) Amended Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Form Interrogatory 15.1 from Defendants Rodney Piercey, Piercey & Associates, and Kenneth Piercey (Continued from 5/6/26)
The motions are continued to June 10, 2026 at 9:00am. Additionally, Defendant’s related discovery motions currently scheduled for June 3, 2026 at 9:00am are also continued to June 10, 2026 at 9:00am. The Court intends to appoint a discovery referee. Counsel shall meet and confer on the selection of a discovery referee. Counsel shall file a status report no later than June 1, 2026. If counsel reach an agreement on a referee they shall file a proposed stipulation and order with the Court. The proposed order should comply with Local Rule 2.14. In the event counsel cannot agree on a discovery referee the Court will select one. Presently, the Court is considering the following candidates:
Douglas B Jacobs SBN 84153 20 Independent Circle Chico, CA 95973 (530) 342-6144 James J. Thompson SBN 63003 1660 Humbolt Rd. Chico, CA 95928 (530) 343-3695
1
Cited authorities
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Ask about this ruling
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”