PLAINTIFF COUNTY OF SAN MATEO’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF ENCORE TEXTILE SERVICE LLC’S RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND FOR SANCTIONS; PLAINTIFF COUNTY OF SAN MATEO’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF ENCORE TEXTILE SERVICE LLC’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE AND FOR SANCTIONS
July 14, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 10 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM LINE 3 24-CIV-05915 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO VS. JOHN ANTHONY DE LEON, ET AL.
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO JESUS PEREDA JOHN ANTHONY DE LEON MIKHAIL MDINARADZE
PLAINTIFF COUNTY OF SAN MATEO’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF ENCORE TEXTILE SERVICE LLC’S RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND FOR SANCTIONS
TENTATIVE RULING:
On June 23, 2026, this court heard two discovery motions brought by plaintiff County of San Mateo against defendant Encore Textile Services, Inc. (Encore) and denied both motions. The court noted that there were two motions on calendar for July 14, 2026 and encouraged the parties to informally resolve the dispute and vacate the hearings. The hearings remain on calendar although unlike the previous motions, defendant has failed to file any opposition and there is no reply.
Although the court pointed out in its June 22, 2026 tentative ruling that plaintiff has used the incorrect party title for Encore in its caption referring to it as a plaintiff. Additionally, the court informed plaintiff that it referred to compelling Encore “to respond to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One.” These mistakes were not corrected and the caption and first paragraph of the notice for the motion to compel form interrogatories and the request for production of documents, set one makes the same mistake. Once again, the court infers that plaintiff means that it is seeking to compel responses to plaintiff’s form interrogatories. Technically, the court cannot order responses to plaintiff’s requests since the notice requests an order on defendant’s requests.
Additionally in the notice of motion, plaintiff put the date of June 16, 2026 as the hearing date, but the clerk’s office changed the hearing date to July 14, 2026. The court file shows a proof of service filed May 15, 2026 of the motion showing service of the motion on defendant on May 15, 2026. Thus, based upon the change of hearing date by the clerk, plaintiff could not have provided on May 15, 2026 proper notice of the June 23, 2026 hearing to Encore. There is no amended proof of service in the court file.
Therefore, Encore did not receive proper notice of the hearing date (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110
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?”
If the court was to consider the motion on its merits, it would deny the motion. As the court previously pointed out in its prior tentative rulings and the same mistake is made in this motion,
July 14, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 11 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________ plaintiff misapprehends the law. When the responses are entirely objections, which appears to be the case here, only the attorneys’ signature and not a verification is required. (See e.g. Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial 8:1364.2 (TRG June 2026 update) [citing Code Civ. Proc., 2023.240, subd. (a), 8:1477, id., § 2031.250 re document demands].)
Further, although a separate statement in support of a motion to compel is not required when there are no responses, (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1)), it is required when there are responses and a separate statement was required here. (Id., rule 3.1345(a).) Thus, plaintiff’s motion is procedurally deficient. Plaintiff makes no attempt to show that the requests are proper and the objections are improper, which is its burden on a motion to compel.
The court orders Jesus Pareda, the attorney for plaintiff to appear at the hearing and explain why in light of the court’s prior tentative ruling for the June 23, 2026 hearing, and his failure to correct the errors identified, he did not take this motion off calendar. Zoom appearances are allowed.
July 14, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 12 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM LINE 4 24-CIV-05915 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO VS. JOHN ANTHONY DE LEON, ET AL.
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO JESUS PEREDA JOHN ANTHONY DE LEON MIKHAIL MDINARADZE
PLAINTIFF COUNTY OF SAN MATEO’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF ENCORE TEXTILE SERVICE LLC’S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE AND FOR SANCTIONS
TENTATIVE RULING:
See ruling on plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, which tentative is incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein.