<https://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/323901-hunt-henriques-are-after-me-too/page/7/#comment-1332310>
<http://schema.org/text>
"I found a letter and comments that calawyer had written for another poster.....I just copied it and filed it but I don't know the original thread...it applies to your  5 witnesses per CCP 96..... \n  \nCCP 96 requires Plaintiff to list 1) the names and addresses of 2) the witnesses it intends to call at trial.  Plaintiff has done neither.  Instead it has listed the names of 5 witnesses it may call at trial.  Nor has it provided addresses.  Instead it has given the address of plaintiff's counsel. \n  \nPlaintiff's failure to identify the witnesses it intends to call at trial (or provide true addresses), has hampered Defendant's ability to prepare for trial.  Please take notice that Defendant intends to object if Plaintiff attempts to call any of these witnesses at trial. \n  \ncalawyer comments: \nIf it gets that far (I think they may be bluffing and don't really have any of these witnesses), they will tell the Judge it is so difficult to know who will be available to testify 30 days out from trial.  Tough.  This is a professional litigant who files tons of cases in this Court.  It files against unrepresented individuals who are nonetheless required to follow the rules.  It should not get a \"pass\" because it finds the rules inconvenient.  If it has a problem with the law, it should employ its extensive lobbying powers to have the legislature change the law.  It should not be permitted to rewrite the law itself as it sees fit. \n  \nAnd you have been prejudiced.  These \"legal specialists\" are simply paid testifiers.  Trial testimony may be found to impeach them.  But you can't search for the testimony of 5 possible witnesses.  That is why the legislature requires plaintiff to identify the witness it intends to call at trial. \n"
<https://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/323901-hunt-henriques-are-after-me-too/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-1332310>