In Rohrbasser v. Lederer (1986) 179 Cal. App. 3d 290, the party asserting collateral estoppel argued that in order to avoid collateral estoppel the party who lost the prior motion must show that it requested the right to produce oral testimony and such request was denied. The appellate court rejected that argument. It said, "Such a requirement . . . not only runs against the grain of the rationale allowing these distinct and cumulative remedies, but also fails to recognize that in certain courts such as the Central District of the Los Angeles County Superior Court . . . a request to present oral testimony in support of a motion is rarely, if ever, granted. Thus, the practical consequences of such a requirement would be to eliminate the use of the summary disposition of issues on motion as envisioned by the Estudillo v. Security Loan etc. Co. (1906) court, because of the severe restrictions which are presently imposed on the use of oral testimony to support a motion." ( Id. at p. 299.)