LINDER vs DALTON, et al.

24CV005410: LINDER vs DALTON, et al. 05/07/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division – Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 25, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept25 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956.

Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a

24CV005410: LINDER vs DALTON, et al. 05/07/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One in Department 53

reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Ambrose Dalton’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One from Plaintiff Donald Linder (“Plaintiff”) is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.

Defendant served the at issue discovery on September 10, 2024. (Batres Decl., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff served unverified responses on October 7, 2024, and additional unverified responses on November 14, 2024. (Batres Decl., ¶¶ 4, 6.) While Plaintiff has made further attempts to amend his responses, he has not served any additional response or verifications. (Batres, Decl., ¶¶ 8, 9, 13.)

While Plaintiff has framed the motion as a motion to compel further responses, it is more properly a motion to compel initial responses because unverified responses are tantamount to no response at all. (Appleton v Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)

Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. A party's failure to oppose a motion is construed as a concession on the merits of the motion. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall provide verified responses by no later than June 9, 2025.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005410: LINDER vs DALTON, et al. 05/07/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One in Department 53