Defendant Haen Constructors’ Motion to Compel; Defendant Thomas Haen’s Motion to Compel; Defendant Robert Haen’s Motion to Compel
LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR JULY 10, 2026
3. MILLER v. HAEN CONSTRUCTORS, ET AL., 25CV2697
(A) Defendant Haen Constructors’ Motion to Compel
(B) Defendant Thomas Haen’s Motion to Compel
(C) Defendant Robert Haen’s Motion to Compel
On May 29, 2026, defendants Haen Constructors, Thomas Haen, and Robert Haen
(collectively, “defendants”), each filed a separate motion to compel plaintiff Laura
Miller’s (“plaintiff”) verified responses to each defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Special
Interrogatories, and Request for Production, all Set One. Each defendant’s motion
includes a request for monetary sanctions against plaintiff in the amount of $1,025.00.
On June 26, 2026, plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to the motions to compel
verified responses without objections; however, plaintiff requests that the court deny all
requests for monetary sanctions.
Defendants filed no reply.
Based on plaintiff’s non-opposition, the court will grant each of the three
defendant’s motions to compel. The court denies each of the requests for monetary
sanctions.
TENTATIVE RULING # 3:
DEFENDANT HAEN CONSTRUCTORS’ MOTION TO COMPEL: THE MOTION TO COMPEL
IS GRANTED IN PART. WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE NOTICE
OF ENTRY OF ORDER, PLAINTIFF LAURA MILLER SHALL SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES
WITHOUT OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT HAEN CONSTRUCTORS’ FORM
INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION,
ALL SET ONE. THE COURT DENIES THE REQUEST FOR A MONETARY SANCTION.
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?”
DEFENDANT THOMAS HAEN’S MOTION TO COMPEL: THE MOTION TO COMPEL IS GRANTED IN PART. WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE NOTICE OF
LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR JULY 10, 2026
ENTRY OF ORDER, PLAINTIFF LAURA MILLER SHALL SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES
WITHOUT OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT THOMAS HAEN’S FORM INTERROGATORIES,
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, ALL SET ONE. THE
COURT DENIES THE REQUEST FOR A MONETARY SANCTION.
DEFENDANT ROBERT HAEN’S MOTION TO COMPEL: THE MOTION TO COMPEL IS GRANTED IN PART. WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE NOTICE OF
ENTRY OF ORDER, PLAINTIFF LAURA MILLER SHALL SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES
WITHOUT OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT ROBERT HAEN’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, ALL SET ONE. THE
COURT DENIES THE REQUEST FOR A MONETARY SANCTION.
NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD (LEWIS v. SUPERIOR COURT (1999) 19
CAL.4TH 1232, 1247), UNLESS A NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAR AND REQUEST FOR
ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S
WEBSITE OR BY TELEPHONE TO THE COURT AT (530) 573-3042 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE
DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF AN INTENT TO
APPEAR MUST BE MADE BY TELEPHONE OR IN PERSON. PROOF OF SERVICE OF SAID
NOTICE MUST BE FILED PRIOR TO OR AT THE HEARING.