DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23CV000759·napa·Civil·Civil
Hearing 2 months agoVACATED

Jane Doe v. Joseph Tolfree et al

Plaintiff Jane Doe’s Motion to Compel Further Deposition Testimony of Alysha Daley

Hearing date
Jun 11, 2026
Department
A
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffJane Doe
DefendantJoseph Tolfree
OtherAlysha Daley

Ruling

Prior to the continued hearing date, Petitioner shall provide notice of the hearing to, and serve the petition on, Phillip Craig and file proof of such notice/service. (Prob. Code § 8110).

Conservatorship of Earl Dean Pairett 26PR000070

PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PROBATE CONSERVATOR OF THE PERSON AND ESTATE

APPEARANCE REQUIRED

CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Cynthia P. Smith, Dept. A (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.

Jane Doe v. Joseph Tolfree et al 23CV000759

PLAINTIFF JANE DOE’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF ALYSHA DALEY

TENTATIVE RULING: The matter is VACATED. As Plaintiff Jane Doe acknowledges in her Notice of Motion, this matter has been assigned to a discovery referee for all discovery disputes. The instant motion constitutes a discovery dispute and is, therefore, subject to the Court’s reference. It appears Plaintiff filed the present Notice of Motion and moving and reply papers with the Court due to an understanding that, “[d]espite this [the discovery reference], Plaintiff is required to file all motions, oppositions, and replies with the Napa County Superior Court so that there is a record of the filings on the docket.” (Notice of Motion, 2:4-5.) The Court is aware of no such requirement. The matter is therefore dropped from calendar.

Mildred Lopez v. Walmart Inc. 25CV002578

[1] DEFENDANT WALMART INC.’S MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF MILDRED LOPEZ TO PROVIDE VERIFIED RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST RAYMOND GHERMEZIAN, ESQ. AND RAYMOND GHERMEZIAN, APLC

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified, code-compliant responses without objection to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, served on February 26, 2026, within 14 calendar days from Notice of Entry of the present ruling. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to pay to Defendant, care of its attorney of record, sanctions in the amount of $810, within 14 calendar days from Notice of Entry of this

2

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

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?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share