Motion to Compel Further re (1) Special Interrogatories and (2) Requests for Production of Documents
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
TENTATIVE RULINGS 6-3-26 Department R17- Judge Gilbert G. Ochoa
This court follows California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a) (1) for tentative rulings. (See San Bernardino Superior Court Local Emergency Rule 8.) Tentative rulings for each law & motion will be posted on the internet (https://www.sb-court.org) by 3:00 p.m. on the court day immediately before the hearing.
If you do not have internet access or if you experience difficulty with the posted tentative ruling, you may obtain the tentative ruling by calling the Administrative Assistant. You may appear in person at the hearing but personal appearance is not required and remote appearance by CourtCall is preferred during the Pandemic. (See www.sbcourt.org/general-information/remote-access)
If you wish to submit on the ruling, call the Court call the Court, check-in and state that you will be submitting on the Tentative, and your appearance is not necessary. But you must check in. If both sides do not appear, the tentative will simply become the ruling. If any party submits on the tentative, the Court will not alter the tentative and it will become the ruling. If one party wants to argue, Court will hear argument but will not change the tentative. If the Court does decide to modify tentative after argument, then a further hearing for oral argument will be reset for both parties to be heard at the same time by the Court. This procedure is meant to minimize your waiting time in Court.
ELMER MAGNAYE CONTRERAS
v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.
Motion: Compel Further re (1) Special Interrogatories and (2) Requests for Production of Documents
Movant: (1)-(2) Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
Respondent: (1)-(2) Plaintiff Elmer Magnaye Contreras
DISCUSSIONS Statement of the Law A party who deems responses to propounded interrogatories (form or special) as evasive or incomplete, an objection is without merit or too general, or the exercise of the option to produce documents is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate can move to compel further responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §2030.300
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?”
Page | 1
The motion to compel must be noticed within 45 days of receipt of the responses (plus the additional time if not personally served). (Code Civ. Proc., §§2030.300, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (c).) The motion must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally the issues presented by the motion before filing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§2030.300, subd. (b), 2031.310, subd. (b)(2), 2016.040.) The required meet and confer must be done in person, by phone, or by teleconference. (Code Civ.
Proc., §2016.040, subd. (a).) The Court shall impose monetary sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a compel further motion unless the court finds that the sanctionable party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h).)
Analysis
Procedurally, the parties met and conferred, albeit before the motion was filed by letters and emails that included requests to discuss the matter but with no response from Plaintiff. After the motions were filed, Counsel telephonically met and conferred. (Burk Decl. at ¶¶5, 7, 9, 12, Exhs. A-B; Burk Reply Decl. at ¶2.) Defendant Honda does not dispute that substantive responses were provided to the atissue Special Interrogatories #1, 3-4, 6-10, 12-20, 23-28, & 32-34, and RFPs #1-13 & 15-26. It argues that the objections also asserted are boilerplate and lack merit, and Plaintiff offers no justification for the objections.
It argues that due to the objections, it cannot discern if responsive answers or materials are being withheld. However, Honda does not explain how it is prejudiced by objections existing when substantive responsive were given. It offers nothing to indicate that the responses given or documents produced are not complete and straightforward. If Plaintiff is withholding information or documents that are responsive, a remedy lies if he seeks to later rely on that evidence in a motion (e.g., Opposition to MSJ) or at the trial.
Honda only speculates that the responses must not be complete because objections were asserted. Justification does not exist to order Plaintiff to provide responses removing all objections. Therefore, the Court denies Defendant Honda’s Motions to Compel Further. Sanctions. Under each Motion, Honda sought $1,000 in sanctions. As it is not prevailing, it is not entitled to sanctions. Ruling (1) DENY Defendant Honda’s Motion to Compel Further Responses (i.e., responses
without objections) to Special Interrogatories #1, 3-4, 6-10, 12-20, 23-28, & 32-34, and request
for sanctions; and
(2) DENY Defendant Honda’s Motion to Compel Further Responses (i.e., responses
without objections) to RFPs #1-13 & 15-26, and request for sanctions.
Movant to give notice.
Page | 2
Dated-
____________________________ Judge
Page | 3