Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents; Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories; Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories; Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, the motion is GRANTED. The Court intends to sign the proposed order Defendants submitted in connection with the instant motion.
PR-25-001101 - IN THE MATTER OF EOFF, MATHEW - a) Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED; b) Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED; c) Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED; d) Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions - GRANTED.
a) Requests for Production
The Court notes that the separate statement for this motion was not fully compliant with rule 3.1345 of the California Rules of Court because it grouped the requests for production and did not quote the requests and the responses verbatim. Nonetheless, to the extent that the tardy responses contained objections or were otherwise not fully code-compliant, the motion is GRANTED. Responding Party shall provide supplemental verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 21 days of service of the signed order on the Responding Party. Petitioner has requested sanctions but failed to set forth his costs. The Court therefore awards sanctions in the amount of the filing fee, $60, against Responding Party Kelli Hrenko. Petitioner to submit a proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling.
b) Form Interrogatories
Petitioner's motion is GRANTED. Responding Party shall provide supplemental verified, code-compliant responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 2.1, 2.2, 12.1, 15.1, and 17.1 without objections within 21 days of service of the signed order on the Responding Party. Petitioner has requested sanctions but failed to set forth his costs. The Court therefore awards sanctions in the amount of the filing fee, $60, against Responding Party Kelli Hrenko. Petitioner to submit a proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling.
c) Special Interrogatories
Petitioner's motion is GRANTED. Responding Party shall provide supplemental verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 21 days of service of the signed order on the Responding Party. Petitioner has requested sanctions but failed to set forth his costs. The Court therefore awards sanctions in the amount of the filing fee, $60, against Responding Party Kelli Hrenko. Petitioner to submit a proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling.
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?”
d) Requests for Admissions
Petitioner's motion is GRANTED. With regard to the requests numbered above 35, although the number of requests exceeds the statutory limit and there was apparently no declaration of necessity, any objection to the excessive number of requests and the lack of a declaration was waived due to the fact that responses were not timely served. (Cf. Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.030(b).) Responding Party shall provide supplemental verified, code-compliant responses without objections within 21 days of service of the signed order on the Responding Party. Petitioner has requested sanctions but failed to set forth his costs. The Court therefore awards sanctions in the amount of the filing fee, $60, against Responding Party Kelli Hrenko. Petitioner to submit a proposed order within five court days that is consistent with this ruling.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23: CV-24-010698 - SANTIBANEZ, RAYMOND vs COUNTY OF STANISLAUS - Defendant State of California Department of Transportation's Motion to Have Matters Deemed Admitted and Requests for Mandatory