GODINA, et al. vs MERCK & CO., INC., et al.
Ex Parte Application for an Order Advancing and Shortening Time on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
25CV161701: GODINA, et al. vs MERCK & CO., INC., SUED INDIVIDUALLY, AS ALTER-EGO OF, AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO SCHOLL, INC. AND SCHERING-P..., et al. 06/30/2026 Hearing on Ex Parte Application for an Order Advancing and Shortening Time on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Walmart Inc. to Special Interrogatory, Set One CRS# A-161701-007 in Department 18
Tentative Ruling - 06/29/2026 Patrick McKinney
Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to Advance and Shorten Time for Hearing on their Motion to Compel Further Responses from Defendant Wal-Mart Inc. to Plaintiffs' Specially Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED.
The Hearing on Motion to Compel Walmart Inc.s Further Responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatory, Set One; filed by CLEMENTINA GODINA (Plaintiff) CRS# 572138904978 scheduled for 08/05/2026 is reset to 07/09/2026 at 01:30 PM in Department 18 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.
Defendant's Opposition shall be filed and served by email (with a courtesy copy sent by email to Department 18) no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, July 6. Plaintiffs' Reply if any shall be filed and served by email (with a courtesy copy sent by email to Department 18) no later than 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 7.
Plaintiffs' counsel must forthwith serve a copy of this order on all counsel of record and selfrepresented parties. The Court orders counsel to obtain a copy of this order from the eCourt portal.
CONTESTING THE TENTATIVE RULING: If the parties do not contest the tentative ruling, it will be adopted. Any party wishing to contest the tentative ruling must notify the court by email at Dept18@alameda.courts.ca.gov, and notify all opposing counsel or unrepresented parties by 4pm the day before the hearing.
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?”