MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RENE RACHELLE SOLIZ’S RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SOLIZ VS RENE RACHELLE SOLIZ'S
BRIDGEWATER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO Tentative Ruling:
Factual / Procedural Context:
On 11/26/24, Plaintiffs Rene Rachelle Soliz, Michael Soliz and Paul Soliz filed this personal injury action against Defendant Susan Marie Bridgewater arising from a car accident on 12/1/22. The complaint asserts: (1) motor vehicle and (2) general negligence. Trial is set for 3/26/27.
Defendant moves to compel initial responses to discovery from Plaintiffs Rene Rachelle Soliz (SRogs [set one]; SRogs [set two], RFPs [set one], RFPs [set two]), Michael Soliz (SRogs [set one], SRogs [set two], RFPs [set one], RFPs [set two]) and Paul Soliz (SRogs [set one], SRogs [set two], RFPs [set one], RFPs [set two]) served 2/6/26 to which Plaintiffs failed to respond. Defendant requests sanctions of $1,530 ($210 x 4.0 hours + $60 filing fee) per motion.
In untimely oppositions, Plaintiffs contend the motions are moot as responses have now been served as to the RFPs.
Analysis
Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290(b) and 2031.300(b) allow the propounding party to file a motion to compel responses to interrogatories and document demands if a response has not been received. If responses are untimely, responding party waives objections. (Id. at §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a).) The opposition only addresses the requests for production, and not the interrogatories. The motions are moot as to the requests for production, and granted as to the special interrogatories.
For interrogatories and requests for production, sections 2030.290(c) and 2031.300(c) provide that “the court shall impose a monetary sanction ... against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response ... unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” The court may award sanctions even though the requested discovery was provided after the motion was filed. (Cal. R. Ct. 3.1348(a).) Here, Plaintiff’s counsel merely states that the original attorney handling the case exited the firm resulting in a delay. However, that does not excuse failing to respond timely and sanctions are warranted.
Defendant’s request of $1,530 per each of the 12 motions are excessive, particularly when they are nearly identical. A reasonable amount is $112.50 (.25 hour x
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?”
2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SOLIZ VS MICHAEL SOLIZ'S RESPONSES TO
BRIDGEWATER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO Tentative Ruling: See #1 Above.
3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SOLIZ VS PAUL SOLIZ'S RESPONSES TO
BRIDGEWATER SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO Tentative Ruling: See #1 Above.
4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RENE RACHELLE SOLIZ'S CVRI2406672 SOLIZ VS BRIDGEWATER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO Tentative Ruling: See #1 Above.
5. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF MICHAEL SOLIZ'S RESPONSES TO CVRI2406672 SOLIZ VS BRIDGEWATER REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO Tentative Ruling: See #1 Above.
6. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF PAUL SOLIZ'S RESPONSES TO CVRI2406672 SOLIZ VS BRIDGEWATER REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET TWO Tentative Ruling: See #1 Above.
7. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF RENE RACHELLE SOLIZ'S SOLIZ VS CVRI2406672 RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIDGEWATER REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE Tentative Ruling: See #1 Above.
8. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF MICHAEL SOLIZ'S RESPONSES TO SOLIZ VS CVRI2406672 SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR BRIDGEWATER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE Tentative Ruling: See #1 Above.
9. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF PAUL SOLIZ'S RESPONSES TO SOLIZ VS CVRI2406672 SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR BRIDGEWATER PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE Tentative Ruling: See #1 Above.
10. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SOLIZ VS RENE RACHELLE SOLIZ'S
BRIDGEWATER RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE Tentative Ruling: See #1 Above.
11. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF SOLIZ VS MICHAEL SOLIZ'S RESPONSES TO
BRIDGEWATER SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE Tentative Ruling: See #1 Above.
12. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF PAUL SOLIZ’S RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL SOLIZ VS CVRI2406672 INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; BRIDGEWATER REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1530.00 Tentative Ruling: See #1 Above.