Motion for Protective Order; Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Admission; Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production; Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories; Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
are reasonable.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production (ROA 43) is GRANTED.
Additionally, Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections (ROA 54) is DENIED and objections are waived by operation of law.
Defendant shall produce any and all responsive documents for Request for Production Nos. 9 and 10 without objection no later than July 24, 2026. Additionally, the Court IMPOSES sanctions in the amount of $1,400 against Klinedinst PC due and payable to Martinian Lawyers Inc. within thirty (30) days of receiving notice.
Plaintiff to give notice.
7. 30-2022- Before the Court are five (5) motions: Motion for Protective 01274513-CU-EI- Order (ROA 465); Motion to Compel Responses to Requests CJC for Admission (ROA 515); Motion to Compel Further Busk vs. Yorba Responses to Requests for Production (ROA 534); Motion to Linda Water Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (ROA District 537); and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (ROA 541).
On April 9, 2026, Defendant and Cross-Complainant Yorba Linda Water District (“Defendant”) filed a Motion for Protective Order against Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Christy L. Busk (“Plaintiff”). ROA 465.
On April 28, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission against Defendant. ROA 515.
On April 29, 2026, Plaintiff filed the following motions against Defendant, Motion to Compel Production (ROA 534); Motion to Compel Further Answers to Special Interrogatories (ROA 537); and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (ROA 541).
I. Motion for Protective Order
When interrogatories are propounded, the responding party, and any other party or affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.090.
A similar provision applies for requests for production and requests for admission. See respectively, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2031.060
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?”
Effective January 1, 2026, a meet and confer declaration “shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt” on the part of the moving party to meet and confer either in person, telephonically, or by videoconference; email alone will not suffice. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2016.040(a). Additionally, the moving party’s declaration “shall include whether [they have] met and conferred, including through an electronic communication, regarding the retention of a certified shorthand reporter to report the hearing on the motion.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2016.040(b).
“A reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with opposing counsel. Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” Townsend v. Super. Ct., 61 Cal. App. 4th 1431, 1439 (1998).
Determining the adequacy of an attempt at informal resolution contemplates the exercise of judicial discretion. In re Marriage of Moore, 102 Cal. App. 5th 1275, 1294 (2024).
The Court finds that Defendant’s meet and confer declaration failed to provide sufficient facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt to meet and confer either in person, telephonically, or by videoconference. The declaration also lacked an attestation regarding the retention of a certified shorthand reporter as required by Section 2016.040(b). Accordingly, the meet and confer
declaration is deficient, and the Motion for Protective Order is DENIED.
II. Motion to Compel Further Responses and Meet and Confer Requirements
Under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.290, a motion to compel further responses to requests for admissions shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2033.290. The same provision applies to a motion to compel further responses to requests for production, and motion to compel further responses to special and form interrogatories. See respectively, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2031.310, 2030.300.
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff's meet and confer declarations submitted in support of the motions are likewise deficient. They fail to provide sufficient facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt to meet and confer, and they do not include the attestation regarding the retention of a certified shorthand reporter. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2016.040(a)
Accordingly, the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories are DENIED.
III. Mandatory Sanctions
The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2030.300. Identical sanction provisions govern motions to compel further responses to requests for production and requests for admission, as well as motions for protective orders. See
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2031.310, 2033.290, 2030.090, 2031.060, 2033.080.
Here, the Court finds no substantial justification for Plaintiff’s or Defendant’s failure to satisfy the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2016.040(b). However, while the Civil Discovery Act authorizes sanctions for a party's failure to make a good-faith effort to meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by videoconference before seeking court intervention, the Court finds no corresponding provision in Chapter 7 of the Act that renders sanctionable a party's failure to confer regarding the retention of a certified shorthand reporter. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2023.010(i). Thus, the Court finds that sanctions against Plaintiff and Defendant are not proper.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order is DENIED. ROA 465.
Additionally, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission (ROA 515), Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (ROA 534), Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (ROA 537), and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (ROA 541) are DENIED.
Clerk to give notice.