CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 2014-CI-16674
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2015

in Re Allen J. Jones

The plaintiff, Cearth Faire, filed a reply to the defendants' response regarding her motion to compel the deposition of defendant Allen J. Jones. Faire argues that Jones has a history of legal misconduct, including judicially admitted human trafficking and holding his infant son hostage, which indicates he will not appear for a deposition without a court order. She asserts she has shown due diligence in attempting to depose Jones and refutes the defendants' allegations that her motion is merely an attack on Jones' character. Faire requests the court to deny the defendants' request for attorney fees and grant her motion to compel Jones' deposition, which is noticed for October 27, 2015.

human traffickingdepositionmotion to compeldiscovery disputelegal misconductsexual harassmentcivil procedureTexas lawattorney feesdue diligence
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2006

Robles v. Merrill Lynch/WFC/L, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially denied the defendants' motion to compel further deposition of the plaintiff's social worker. This decision was subsequently appealed and unanimously reversed by the appellate court. The appellate panel determined that the plaintiff had waived the applicable privilege under CPLR 4508. This waiver occurred because the plaintiff's bill of particulars affirmatively placed her mental condition in issue by alleging related injuries. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motion to compel the deposition.

Mental ConditionDepositionPrivilegeWaiverSocial WorkerCPLR 4508Appellate ReversalMotion to CompelBill of ParticularsDiscovery
References
1
Case No. 21-mc-102
Regular Panel Decision

Socha v. 110 Church, LLC

Plaintiffs, Marek Soeha, Jerzy Muszkatel, Tadeusz Kowalewski, Wla-dyslaw Kwasnik, and Waldemar Ropel, sought to compel expert testimony from non-retained physicians associated with the Mt. Sinai World Trade Center Medical Monitoring Program and a Workers’ Compensation physician. These "Non-Retained Experts" possess unique knowledge regarding the effects of World Trade Center dust but were unwilling to provide data or serve as expert witnesses due to time constraints and concerns about compromising neutrality. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied the plaintiffs' motion to compel depositions and amended expert disclosures, finding a lack of "substantial need" as the information was not unique and comparable witnesses were available. However, acknowledging the unparalleled scope of the Mt. Sinai WTC Health Program's research, the court ordered Mt. Sinai to produce its data, with appropriate redactions, following an established protocol.

Expert Witness DepositionMotion to CompelFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 26Non-Retained ExpertsWorld Trade Center LitigationMedical Monitoring ProgramDiscovery DisputeSubpoena Expert WitnessCausation TestimonyData Disclosure Order
References
3
Case No. 04-10-00070-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2010

in Re K.L. & J. Limited Partnership and David Torres, Relators

This original mandamus proceeding, brought by K.L. & J. Limited Partnership and David Torres (relators and defendants in the underlying case), challenges several discovery rulings made by the trial court in a lawsuit filed by Bella Viveros. The relators sought to compel Viveros to answer deposition questions regarding her citizenship and social security number authenticity, and to amend her petition to include social security information. They also contested the quashing of deposition notices for Viveros's prior employment records. The appellate court conditionally granted mandamus relief in part, directing the trial court to compel answers regarding the authenticity of Viveros's social security number and to withdraw the protective order concerning employment records, finding the trial court abused its discretion in these areas. However, relief was denied regarding citizenship questions and amending the petition, as relators failed to demonstrate an adequate remedy by appeal for the former, and the court found no abuse of discretion for the latter.

MandamusDiscovery DisputeSocial Security NumberEmployment RecordsMotion to CompelProtective OrderAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTrial Court ErrorSexual Harassment
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nadler v. Federal Deposit Insurance

Congressman Jerrold Nadler, the Tribeca Community Association, and the 67 Vestry Street Tenants Association sued the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to compel the disclosure of a redacted joint venture agreement. The FDIC, acting as receiver for the failed American Savings Bank (ASB), withheld information related to ASB's subsidiary, Amore Holdings, Inc., citing FOIA Exemption Four for trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information. The court, applying the National Parks test, determined that public disclosure would significantly impair the FDIC’s ability to maximize profits from its receivership assets and cause substantial competitive harm to Amore. Consequently, the court granted the FDIC’s motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion, and dismissed the complaint.

FOIAExemption FourCommercial InformationConfidentialityFDIC ReceivershipSummary JudgmentGovernment AgencyReal Estate DevelopmentFreedom of Information Act
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re K.L. & J. Ltd. Partnership

This is a petition for writ of mandamus filed by K.L. & J. Limited Partnership and David Torres against Bella Viveros. Relators challenged the trial court's denial of their motion to compel Viveros to answer deposition questions regarding her social security number and citizenship status, and to amend her petition with personal identifying information. They also challenged the trial court's grant of Viveros' motion to quash and protective order concerning her prior employment records. The appellate court conditionally granted mandamus relief in part. It ordered the trial court to compel Viveros to answer questions about the authenticity of her social security number and to withdraw the protective order regarding employment records. However, the court denied relief regarding Viveros' citizenship status and amendment of her petition, concluding relators failed to show a lack of an adequate remedy by appeal for those issues.

MandamusDiscoverySocial Security NumberCitizenship StatusEmployment RecordsMotion to CompelProtective OrderAbuse of DiscretionAdequate Remedy by AppealSexual Harassment
References
14
Case No. ADJ3604849 (VNO 0545037)
Regular
Aug 17, 2009

TOMAS ARAMBULA vs. TODD RUTKIN, INC., BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed petitions for reconsideration filed by Tami Navon and Ira Reinherz, D.C., finding the challenged orders compelling deposition attendance were interlocutory. The WCAB denied Reinherz's petition for removal, stating he failed to demonstrate prejudice from being compelled to attend his deposition as a lien claimant. However, the WCAB granted Navon's petition for removal, rescinding the order compelling her deposition as she is not a party or lien claimant and required proper subpoena service.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationPetitionDepositionCompel AttendanceLien ClaimantAdministrative Law JudgeInterlocutory OrdersSubstantive Right
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 1992

Tushaj v. Elm Management Ass'n

The case involves an appeal concerning an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, dated July 10, 1992. Defendant Elm Management Association, Inc. sought to amend its answer to include a workers’ compensation affirmative defense and for summary judgment on that defense, but the initial motion was denied. The appellate court modified the order, granting Elm Management Association, Inc. leave to amend its answer to assert the defense, while affirming the remainder of the lower court's decision. Evidence from the plaintiff's deposition suggested Elm Management Association, Inc. exerted control over the plaintiff, raising a factual question about a potential special employment relationship and applicability of workers' compensation. The court emphasized that leave to amend pleadings should be freely granted unless there is evidence of prejudice or unfair surprise.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeAffirmative DefenseAmendment of PleadingsSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureEmployment RelationshipControl TestPrejudiceThird-Party Defendant
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mercado v. Division of New York State Police

Plaintiff, a former Hispanic New York State police officer, filed a Title VII action alleging discriminatory disciplinary practices led to his termination. He moved to compel discovery of evaluations of fellow officers and disciplinary records of ten specific officers. The court denied the motion to compel officer evaluations, finding them irrelevant as plaintiff himself had superior evaluations. However, the court conditionally granted the motion to compel disciplinary records, deeming them potentially relevant, subject to a confidentiality agreement. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint as a sanction for plaintiff's failure to appear at two depositions. The court denied the motion to dismiss, citing the harshness of the remedy for a pro se litigant, but ordered the plaintiff to schedule his deposition and pay $130 in expenses for the missed depositions.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIPolice MisconductDiscovery DisputeMotion to CompelSanctionsPro Se LitigantConfidentiality AgreementDisciplinary RecordsPersonnel Files
References
20
Case No. ADJ7189639, ADJ9059236
Regular
Mar 14, 2017

MARGARET KORAN vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, affirming the WCJ's order. The WCJ had denied the defendant's request to compel answers at deposition, citing the applicant's right to privacy. The WCAB found that the exclusion of a bar-certified law student from the deposition did not constitute irreparable harm or significant prejudice to the defendant. Additionally, the WCAB admonished the defendant's attorney for violating WCAB rules by attaching numerous documents already in the adjudication file to the petition.

Petition for RemovalFindings and OrdersPetition to Compel AnswersConstitutional Right to PrivacyDepositionLaw Student InternSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCAB Rule 10842Adjudication File
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,884 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational