Motion for Entry of Order on Discovery Referee’s Final Rulings
Plaintiff Hoi Trinh’s motion for an order entering the Final Rulings of discovery referee Hon. Robert J. Moss (Ret.) subject to Plaintiff’s objections is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The court has reviewed the Final Rulings issued by the discovery referee, Robert J. Moss (Ret.), Plaintiff’s objections, the parties’ responses to the objections, as well as other documents as necessary. “The court has broad discretion to determine the best method for considering a party’s challenges to the referee’s findings, and the court is not required to hold a hearing or conduct a de novo analysis of the underlying arguments. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 644, subd. (b); Marathon Nat. Bank v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1261.) In its review, the court should give the referee’s findings “ ‘great weight’ ” and focus on the parties’ objections to those findings. (In re Marriage of Petropoulos (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 161, 176)” (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 589.)
After an independent review and consideration of all the papers currently before it, the court overrules Plaintiff’s objections. The court adopts the discovery referee’s Final Rulings dated February 10, 2026 and filed March 5, 2026 (ROA 502) as this court’s ruling on the discovery motions.
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?”