MEDEROS VS CHAVEZ

1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET CVPS2301795 MEDEROS VS CHAVEZ TWO FROM PLAINTIFF RUBEN MEDEROS BY MILO HOLTE, PREMIER GUNITE, INC. Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling. The Opposition filed by Plaintiff is untimely. The motion is continued to 6.26.26, Defendant to file a reply by 6.17.26. No further briefing shall be permitted.

Parties are directed to be prepared to discuss trial readiness in light of the current motion as well as the motions to compel by Plaintiff currently set for 7.17.26.

2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL: ANSWER/RESPONSE TO SPECIAL CVPS2405373 REES VS PARRY INTERROGATORIES, ANSWER/RESPONSE TO PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY WILLIAM PARRY Tentative Ruling: A party may file a motion compelling a further response to requests for production if it finds that a response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

In a motion to compel a further response as to document requests, the moving party must state facts demonstrating good cause justifying the discovery sought by demonstrating relevance and specific facts justifying discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1); Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.) The burden to show good cause for production “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (Tbg Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.) Once good cause is established, the responding party has the burden to justify any objections. (Kirkland, supra, 25 Cal.App.4th at 98.)

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s supplementation remains deficient. Defendant must bring another motion to compel further supplemental responses if the parties cannot resolve the matter. (