LINCOLN, et al. vs KILLEEN

25CV144287: LINCOLN, et al. vs KILLEEN 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Webster Lincoln (Plaintiff) + CRS# 303728451754 in Department 512

Tentative Ruling - 07/10/2026 Elizabeth Riles

The Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Webster Lincoln, Niambi Lincoln on 06/05/2026 is Denied.

Plaintiffs Webster Lincoln’s and Niambi Lincoln’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion to Compel defendant Joann Killeen’s (“Defendant”) verified Further Responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant breached a contract with Plaintiffs to provide expert witness testimony at trial in an underlying action for an expert witness retainer fee of $10,000. Defendant apparently contends that she did not perform the contract because Plaintiffs and their legal counsel sought to have Defendant provide testimony in an unethical matter.

The Moving papers are defective in several respects. First, the Moving Declaration contains no evidence that Plaintiffs complied with the requirement of an in person, telephonic or videoconference meet and confer session with defense counsel before bringing the present motion. (See CCP § 2023.010.)

Second, the moving Separate Statement is not full and complete so that the Court is not required to review any other documents to understand each discovery request and the response to it that is at issue. (CRC Rule 3.1345(c). Specifically, the Separate Statement does not contain any of the underlying Requests for Admissions (“RFA”) and Plaintiff’s responses thereto, such that the Court could understand whether the verified Supplemental Responses are inadequate without reviewing documents outside of the Separate Statement. Further, the RFA and Defendant’s Responses thereto are not part of the record on this Motion to Compel.

Third, although Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the caption of the Notice of Motion, no amount of sanctions are requested in the Notice of Motion. The Court will not award monetary sanctions unless the Notice of Motion states the amount of sanctions sought and against whom the sanctions are sought.

Wherefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The Court reserves a decision on Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions in Opposition.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE RULINGS

PLEASE NOTE: If any party contests the tentative ruling, the hearing on the motion will occur remotely via the court's own video-conferencing system. 25CV144287: LINCOLN, et al. vs KILLEEN 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Webster Lincoln (Plaintiff) + CRS# 303728451754 in Department 512 Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing date.

To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:

First, the party must notify Department 512, by email at Dept512@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.

Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."

Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application.

TO CONNECT TO ZOOM:

Join the meeting using the following link: https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16057661931 Join the meeting by Phone:

Meeting ID: 160 5766 1931

1 669 254 5252, 16057661931# US (San Jose) 1 669 216 1590, 16057661931# US (San Jose) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free