https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery en-us Court abused discretion in refusing to allow an amendment to complaint. https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/images/bivens-v-sanford-45.html Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:39:59 GMT https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/images/bivens-v-sanford-45.html https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/thread/45/ In action between husband and wife where each accuses the other of first becoming infected with the HIV virus and infecting the other, and where husband tested negative for the virus six weeks before wife discovered she was infected, wife is entitled to discovery regarding husband’s medical records and sexual conduct but only for time period starting six months before husband tested negative through the time the couple last had sexual relations unless wife can show test is inaccurate or unreliable. https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/images/john-b-v-superior-court-bridget-b-filed-july-cite-as-sos-20.html Mon, 03 Jul 2006 23:54:35 GMT https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/images/john-b-v-superior-court-bridget-b-filed-july-cite-as-sos-20.html https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/thread/20/ Trial court did not abuse discretion by imposing evidence and issue preclusion sanctions against party for engaging in a pattern of discovery violations in connection with deposition notices and document production requests, resulting in the loss of important evidence in products liability case, even though no court orders were violated. Any error in imposing evidence sanction was harmless in absence of showing that sanctioned party would likely have obtained a more favorable verdict if excluded evidence had been admitted. Special instruction telling jury that defendant had attempted to conceal evidence from being used at trial, and that the jury could consider that fact in determining what inferences to draw from the evidence as it related to the issue to which that evidence related, was proper where defendant acted intentionally and in bad faith. Because trial court imposed discovery sanctions after it had summarily adjudicated plaintiff’s punitive damages claims in defendant’s f https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/images/karlsson-v-ford-motor-company-filed-june-second-district-div-eight-13.html Sat, 01 Jul 2006 14:42:23 GMT https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/images/karlsson-v-ford-motor-company-filed-june-second-district-div-eight-13.html https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/thread/13/ Where party sought to enforce subpoena duces tecum for business records against district attorney pertaining to documents prepared by local police department and California Highway Patrol that were in district attorney’s possession, court should have denied subpoena on ground that district attorney was not custodian of records within meaning of Evidence Code Sec. 1561 because district attorney and his subordinates were not able to attest to documents’ authenticity and trustworthiness as required by section. https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/images/cooley-v-superior-court-greenstein-filed-june-second-district-div-one-15.html Sat, 01 Jul 2006 14:32:45 GMT https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/images/cooley-v-superior-court-greenstein-filed-june-second-district-div-one-15.html https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/thread/15/ Fourth District Court of Appeal decision in Apex Wholesale, Inc., v. Fry's Electronics, Inc. Decision reverses judgment following finding of instructional error, and affirming permanent injunction against Fry's Electronics, Inc., and William Randolph Fry. https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/images/apex-wholesale-inc-v-frys-electronics-5.html Fri, 16 Jun 2006 05:36:12 GMT https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/images/apex-wholesale-inc-v-frys-electronics-5.html https://www.fearnotlaw.com/gallery/thread/5/