DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
2023-01367165·orange·Civil·Discovery Dispute
GRANTED

PELAYO VS. BAHENA

1. MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; 2. MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES; 3. MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION

Hearing date
May 12, 2026
Department
C32
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Motion to Compel Discovery

Monetary amounts referenced

$360.00

Parties

PlaintiffPELAYO
DefendantVICTOR HUGO NAVA BAHENA

Ruling

Defendant Victor Hugo Nava Bahena’s motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED. Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, provides, in part: “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, . . . [t]he party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” The failure to serve a timely response also waives any objections to the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

Section 2030.290, subdivision (c) further provides the court “shall” impose a monetary sanction against any party “who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” On 4/3/25, Defendant propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One, on Plaintiff. (Esten Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Defendant provided an extension for Plaintiff’s responses to 10/23/25. (Esten Decl., ¶ 4.) As of the date of the motion, Plaintiff has not served any responses. (Esten Decl., ¶ 4.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff shall serve Code-compliant responses, without objections, within 30 days of this order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subds. (a) & (b).) Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff is granted in the reduced amount of $360.00, payable within 30 days.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Source

Share