Hakim v. ASM Global, LLC, et al.
by Plaintiff for an Order Compelling Defendant ASM Global, LLC’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted; by Plaintiff for an Order Compelling Defendant ASM Global Fresno, LLC’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
(34) Tentative Ruling
Re: Hakim v. ASM Global, LLC, et al. Superior Court Case No. 25CECG03286
Hearing Date: July 2, 2026 (Dept. 501)
Motion: by Plaintiff for an Order Compelling Defendant ASM Global, LLC’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted
by Plaintiff for an Order Compelling Defendant ASM Global Fresno, LLC’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted
Tentative Ruling:
To deny the motions against ASM Global, LLC and ASM Global Fresno, LLC, without prejudice.
Explanation:
Plaintiff Terajee Hakim moves under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, to compel defendants ASM Global, LLC and ASM Global Fresno, LLC to respond to Form Interrogatories – General, sets one and two, Form Interrogatories –Employment, set one, Special Interrogatories, sets one and two, and Request for Production, set one. Plaintiff is also moving under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 for an order deeming Requests for Admission, sets one and two, deemed admitted by defendants.
Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290, 2031.300 and 2033.280 govern motions where the answering party fails to serve a timely response. Here, however, the moving papers indicate that timely responses were served on October 22, 2025, following a series of extensions to respond to set one of the discovery propounded. (Searcy Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.) A response containing only objections need not be verified and is complete at the time of service. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.250, 2031.250, 2033.240; Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Kippen) (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 339, 344.)
Accordingly, since the motions are brought under inapplicable statutes, the motions are denied without prejudice.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order
adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: KCK on 07/01/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
10
Cited authorities
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Ask about this ruling
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”