Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
25CV007870: MEAD vs SORIANO, et al. 06/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One in Department 8D
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Public Notice Civil Division Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 8D, located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party 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, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.
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.
The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Courts Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 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 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
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?”
25CV007870: MEAD vs SORIANO, et al. 06/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One in Department 8D
reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided
***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION****
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff June Meads (Plaintiff) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission from Defendant Wilson Soriano (Defendant) is ruled upon as follows.
Factual Background
Plaintiff served the at issue discovery requests on September 30, 2025. (Ali Decl., ¶ 2.) Defendant served responses on November 17, 2025. (Manzoor Decl., ¶ 4.)
Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to requests for admission, set one, nos. 3- 12, 14-21, 23-30. Defendant opposes.
Discussion
In opposition to the instant motion, Defendant argues, inter alia, that the motion is untimely and that Plaintiff failed to properly meet and confer prior to filing.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.290(c) provides:
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
25CV007870: MEAD vs SORIANO, et al. 06/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One in Department 8D
(c) Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or any specific later date to which the requesting party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the requesting party waives any right to compel further response to the requests for admission.
Defendant served his responses on November 17, 2026. Therefore, any motion to compel was required to be filed by January 1, 2026, plus 5 days for service by mail. Plaintiff did not file and serve the instant motion until January 5, 2026.
The Court concludes that the instant motion is untimely, depriving the Court of jurisdiction. The 45-day time limit is jurisdictional in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)
The Court further notes that Plaintiffs meet-and-confer efforts made prior to filing this motion do not appear to satisfy the current version of Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040(a), which requires a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040(a), emphasis added.) Here, the meet-and-confer efforts amounted to a single letter, and there is no indication of an attempt to confer in person, by telephone, or by videoconference.
Therefore, the instant motion is DENIED.
The Court notes that this ruling does not entirely preclude Plaintiff from seeking the same information covered by the requests as to which the Court has determined the motion is untimely. A party is permitted to utilize multiple discovery devices to obtain the same information sought through a different discovery device. (Carter v. Superior Court (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 994, 997.)
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.