Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Defendant Sara Ann Spane and Request for Monetary Sanctions
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
(03) Tentative Ruling
Re: Wheeler v. Spane Case No. 25CECG02378
Hearing Date: July 7, 2026 (Dept. 403)
Motion: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Defendant Sara Ann Spane and Request for Monetary Sanctions
Tentative Ruling:
To deny plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses from defendant Sara Ann Spane, in its entirety. To deny plaintiffs’ request for sanctions against defendant Spane. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300; 2031.310.)
Explanation:
Under Code of Civil Procedure, sections 2030.300, subdivision (c) and 2031.310, subdivision (c), a party who wishes to move to compel further responses to interrogatories or requests for production of documents must bring their motion within 45 days of the date that the response is served, or a later date agreed to in writing by the parties. If the party fails to bring their motion within 45 days, or a later date agreed to in writing, the party waives the wright to compel a further response. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (c).)
The moving party must also provide a declaration regarding efforts to meet and confer about any disputed responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1); 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) “This statute [imposing a 45-day deadline for motions to compel further responses] is mandatory and the court may not entertain a belated motion to compel.” (Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 683, citations omitted.)
Here, defendant Sara Ann Spane served her original responses on September 25, 2025. However, the 45-day deadline was tolled because another defendant had filed a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute, which stayed all discovery until the court ruled on the motion. (
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?”
The court ruled on the anti-SLAPP motion on November 19, 2025. The parties then engaged in meet and confer discussions, which resulted in the parties agreeing to extend the deadline to January 5, 2026. (Christofferson decl., ¶ 8, and Exhibit D thereto.)
Defendant served supplemental responses on December 23, 2025. Plaintiffs’ counsel deemed the responses insufficient. Rather than meeting and conferring on the new responses, however, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a request for pretrial discovery conference on December 26, 2025.
The court denied the request on January 2, 2026, and granted plaintiffs leave to file their motion to compel. (Exhibit F to Christofferson decl.) The court noted that the filing of the request had tolled the deadline to bring a motion to compel for seven days. (Ibid.)
Plaintiffs then filed their motion to compel on January 12, 2026. Since the parties had agreed to extend the deadline for filing a motion until January 5, 2026, that deadline remained in place. The court’s ruling on the pretrial discovery conference request merely noted that the running of the statutory deadline had been tolled for seven days, which did not affect the parties’ agreed-upon deadline of January 5, 2026. Therefore, plaintiffs needed to file their motion by January 5, 2026. Since they waited until January 12, 2026 to file their motion, it was not timely and they waived their right to compel further responses from Spane.
Also, even assuming that the court’s order on the pretrial discovery conference extended the deadline for another seven days, the deadline would have run on January 9, 2026. Plaintiffs did not file their motion until January 12, 2026, so the motion was still untimely.
Furthermore, to the extent that plaintiffs are seeking to compel further responses to the supplemental responses that defendant served on December 23, 2025, plaintiffs’ counsel has not filed a meet and confer declaration regarding his attempts to resolve the dispute on the supplemental responses before filing his motion to compel. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b)(1); 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) Thus, the motion to compel further responses to the supplemental responses is defective as well. Therefore, the court intends to deny the motion to compel in its entirety.
Finally, the court intends to deny the plaintiffs’ request for sanctions against defendant, as they failed to prevail on the underlying motion.
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: SMC on July 2, 2026. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
5