Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
24CV008474: ARG OPERATIONS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs ANTONIO, et al. 05/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two in Department 16D
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE:
Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:
To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.
Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.
The Department 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.
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?”
A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.
24CV008474: ARG OPERATIONS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs ANTONIO, et al. 05/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two in Department 16D
Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
****NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT WILL MOVE TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE.*****
TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff ARG Operations, LLCs unopposed motion to compel Defendant Monina Antonios responses to special interrogatories (set two) is granted.
No opposition to the motion was filed. A partys failure to oppose a motion is construed as a concession on the merits of the motion. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)
No later than May 21, 2026, Defendant Monina Antonio shall serve verified responses, without objections, to Plaintiffs special interrogatories (set two) as requested in the moving papers.
Plaintiffs request for sanctions is denied as the motion was unopposed. Although California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348 purports to authorize sanctions if the motion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governing this discovery authorize sanctions only if the motion was unsuccessfully made or opposed. Any order imposing sanctions under the C.R.C. must conform to the conditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing sanctions. (Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v. Firmaterr, Inc. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 355.) However, repeated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an abuse of the discovery process and award sanctions on that basis. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 481.)
Notably, while CCP § 2023.010 sets forth an example of a misuse of the discovery process, CCP § 2023.010 does not authorize sanctions on its own. CCP § 2023.030
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
24CV008474: ARG OPERATIONS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs ANTONIO, et al. 05/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Verified Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two in Department 16D
sets forth available sanctions for misuse of discovery. CCP § 2023.030(a) states that the Court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The Court simply notes that CCP § 2023.030(a) states that the Court 'may' impose sanctions for a misuse of the discovery process to the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, but that the more specific statute governing the instant motion, CCP § 2030.290 only permits sanctions if the motion was made or opposed without substantial justification.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.