Matuszewicz v. Phenos Collective, Inc. et al.

(49)

Tentative Ruling

Re: Matuszewicz v. Phenos Collective, Inc. et al. Superior Court Case No. 24CECG04227

Hearing Date: June 16, 2026 (Dept. 403)

Motions (x2): 1) By Plaintiff Morgan Matuszewicz to Compel Defendant East Bay HC Resource’s Response to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request for Sanctions; 2) By Plaintiff Morgan Matuszewicz to Compel Defendant East Bay HC Resource’s Response to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two, and Request for Sanctions;

Tentative Ruling:

To deny, without prejudice, plaintiff Morgan Matuszewicz’s motions to compel defendant East Bay HC Resource’s response to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1011, 1013a, & 1013b.)

Explanation:

Plaintiff Morgan Matuszewicz (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel initial responses from defendant East Bay HC Resource (“Defendant”) for Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set Two and Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two (collectively “Set Two”)1.

The evidence required for an order compelling initial responses is that the discovery was properly served, and that no responses were received by the due date. While this is not an express requirement, attaching copies of the discovery served, including the proof(s) of service, is the standard method of proving service on a motion to compel. Here, copies of the discovery requests have been attached to counsel’s declaration without the proofs of service. Counsel’s declaration stating the date of service does not include the information required by statute to prove service. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1011, 1013a, & 1013b.) Counsel’s declaration does not even identify how service was completed. Accordingly, the motions to compel are denied, without prejudice.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312