GARRETTSTEINMAN, DANIEL PAUL vs SIERRA CLUB

"Each response shall answer the substance of the requested admission, or set forth an objection to the particular request." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.210.)

Responding party shall either admit the request, deny the request, or state that it lacks sufficient information or knowledge to do so. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.220.)

"If only a part of a request for admission is objectionable, the remainder of the request shall be answered." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.230.)

If the merits were reached, they would likely be in favor of Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks attorney's fees in opposing the motion in the amount of $6,370.00 against Defendant and its counsel as reimbursement for 14 hours billed at a rate of $455 per hour. "The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response, 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." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.290.)

This is reasonable under these circumstances. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 2033.290, the Court orders monetary sanctions in the amount of $6,370.00 against Defendant and its attorney of record, jointly and severally, in conjunction with the instant motion. Defendant and its attorney are to pay the sanctions to Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin Law Corporation within 20 days.

In my last ruling on a discovery ruling, I concluded with, "Tesoro's choices concern the Court and I anticipate that the parties will substantially or completely resolve other discovery issues without its assistance." This anticipation was incorrect, and I now amend my forecast. If the parties are not able to work out their discovery differences, I anticipate that substantial meet and confer efforts will occur and any motions filed will be precisely compliant with the rules.

CV-25-003510 - BANK OF AMERICA NA vs BANUELOS, LOLO M - Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment - DENIED. No service of the motion is on file, and the declaration does not show good cause and is untimely. The Court lacks authority to grant the motion.

Plaintiff filed the complaint on April 14, 2025. Defendant failed to answer the complaint or otherwise appear and defend the action. On August 5, 2025, default and the clerk's judgment were entered against Defendant. On November 13, 2026, the abstract of judgment issued. On May 14, 2026, Defendant, appearing in pro per, submitted the instant motion to set aside default and default judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, sections 473(b) and 473.5. The motion is accompanied by a declaration.

"The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or the party's legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against the party through the party's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 473.) "Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken." (Id.)

In his declaration, Defendant states that he was served with the complaint and summons but did not understand that he needed to file a response. Defendant believed he could have just appeared in court. Defendant states that he appeared on a hearing date and found out a default judgment had been entered.

Section 473(b) requires that motions for relief "shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment . . . was taken." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 473.) Here, the default and clerk's judgment were entered on August 5, 2025. Defendant's motion was not filed until May 14, 2026, which is over 9 months after the judgment was entered. Defendant's motion is therefore untimely because it was not made within six months of the judgment.

CV-25-004154 - GARRETTSTEINMAN, DANIEL PAUL vs SIERRA CLUB - a) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendants' Request for Admissions, Set No. One - HEARING REQUIRED; b) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendants' Form Interrogatories, Set No. Two - HEARING REQUIRED; c) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents - HEARING REQUIRED; d) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendants' Special Interrogatories, Set. No. One - HEARING REQUIRED.

Discovery is supposed to be self-executing, and the parties appeared much closer on the issues than it appears in the filings. This is complicated by the late filing under unusual circumstances not clearly covered by the case law. I have tentative views on the threshold matter of whether I have jurisdiction. While failure to pay is normally dispositive, the procedural posture of the case is not usual and forfeiture of the information appears unduly harsh. If I have jurisdiction, or discretion to find jurisdiction, I intend to go forward on the motions. However, it appears to the Court that Defendant has conceded overbreadth in the requests.

If I reach the merits, here are the likely rulings: RFA's: RFA's 5 and 6 appear sufficiently answered. RFA 7 needs a further response. RFA 8 is properly objected to for ambiguity. RFA 9 has a sufficient answer. RFA's 10 and 11 are sufficiently answered.

Form Interrogatories Set Two: Form Interrogatory 17.1 subparts (b) and (d) require further response. If specific medical or privileged content would be responsive, asserting that privilege over specific content is warranted.

Production of documents: All responses will be limited to October 2020 to December 2022. Item number 2, the Gualala declaration, will be compelled. Items 4-7 appear to include items now in Plaintiff's possession, and they should be produced.

Special Interrogatories, Set One: All interrogatories will be time-limited to the above dates. Special Interrogatory 18 requires a further response. Various witness identification issues should be answered.

Sanctions: Although Plaintiff has failed to answer some discovery he should have answered, the lateness of the filing (and, perhaps, in-court efforts to reach resolutions) leave the Court deeply disinclined to issue any sanctions at all.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:

CV-25-012482 - KOURY, ANITA vs FORD MOTOR COMPANY - Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint - CONTINUED to August 4, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22.

The motion for judgment on the pleadings is procedurally defective. It fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 439, which requires that parties meet and confer "in person, by telephone, or by video conference" before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Here, the effort to meet and confer was insufficient. The only attempt to comply with Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 439 was the delivery of a written communication on May 14, 2026, sent via email to which Plaintiff did not respond. (Declaration of Jeck Dizon, P.P. 2, 4.) A communication sent by email is insufficient. The Legislature's specification of the authorized methods for meeting and conferring reflects its belief that more personal forms of communication--beyond written exchanges--are better suited to resolving disputes informally, thereby reducing the burden on both the courts and the parties.

Accordingly, this matter is CONTINUED to August 4, 2026 at 8:30 am in Department 22. The parties are ordered to meet and confer by one of the methods set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 439. Moving Party to file and serve a declaration no later than July 21, 2026, describing the efforts to meet and confer and any narrowing of the issues.

PR-23-000289 - IN THE MATTER OF THE MACHADO FAMILY CREDIT BYPASS TRUST - Petitioner's Motion for Consolidation of Trials of Related Actions - CONTINUED to July 30, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.