Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
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.)
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?”
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.