Plaintiff Alexandra Seifert’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery and Sanctions
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
(47) Tentative Ruling
Re: Alexandra Seifert vs. Paul Michaelides Superior Court Case No. 25CECG03846
Hearing Date: July 1, 2026 (Dept. 501)
Motions: Plaintiff Alexandra Seifert’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery and Sanctions
Tentative Ruling:
To continue the motion to August 11, 2026 at 3:30 pm in Department 501 to allow further briefing as set forth below. Plaintiff, Alexandra Seifert, is ordered to file and serve a supplemental declaration authenticating and attaching copies of defendants’ responses to the discovery at issue, and verifications, and all proof of service for the above, no later than the close of business on July 15, 2026.
Explanation:
Plaintiff Alexandra Seifert (“Seifert” or “plaintiff”) files this motion to compel further responses from defendants, Paul Leon Michaelides (“Michaelides”) and Paul L. Michaelides, D.D.S., M.Sc.D., Inc. (“DDS”) (collectively “defendants.”) Specifically, Seifert seeks to compel further responses to her Special Interrogatories, Set One and Form Interrogatories from Michaelides, and to compel further production as to Request for Production, Set One from DDS.
The Court continues the motion.
Seifert’s Separate Statement in Support of Statement to Compel Further, submitted on March 9, 2026, purports to be in compliance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(c). However, Seifert’s declaration in support of her motion, submitted on March 9, 2026, is deficient. It does not provide the entire history of this discovery dispute. Nor does it provide a copy of the very responses Seifert seeks to have us find inadequate. The Separate Statement is not evidence, it merely a tool to aid the Court’s review.
Without this foundational evidence, the court cannot proceed. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.1113(j) and (k); the original or copies of all evidence that will be presented to the court at the motion hearing must be served along with the notice of motion and points and authorities [Code Civ. Proc., §1005, subd. (b); David S. Karton, a Law Corp. v. Musick, Peeler Garrett LLP (2022) 83 CA5th 1027, 1048.)
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?”
Furthermore, the Court notes that when an opposing party expressly objects to inadequate notice but then opposes the motion on the merits, the issue of defective notice may be waived. (Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 690, 697.) Here, defendants made substantive arguments to Seifert’s combined motion.
Accordingly, the Court continues to this matter in order for Seifert this defect. Furthermore, California Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.”
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: KCK on 06/29/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
18