DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC25627093·sf·Civil·Discovery Dispute
Hearing about 2 months agoGRANTED

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT WEST, VS. BRITTANY NICOLE LUCAS ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Special Interrogatory Responses And For Sanctions

Hearing date
Jul 14, 2026
Department
301
Judge
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$3500$2250

Parties

PlaintiffCONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT WEST
DefendantBRITTANY NICOLE LUCAS

Ruling

Matter on calendar for Monday, July 14, 2026, Line 5.3,Plaintiff's unopposed motions to compel discovery responses are granted. Plaintiff's request for award of monetary sanctions is granted, as discussed below.

On March 23, 2026, Plaintiff Construction Mgt West served the following written discovery requests on Defendant Brittany Nicole Lucas: (1) Requests for Production of Documents; (2) Form Interrogatories; (3) Special Interrogatories; and (4) Requests for Admission. Defendant did not respond to any of the discovery requests.

Plaintiff filed motions to deem the requests for admission admitted, and to compel responses to the interrogatories and requests for production of documents on June 12, 2026. It served Defendant with the motions by mail and electronically on June 12, 2026. Defendant did not oppose the motions.

Good cause appearing: 1) The requests for admission are deemed admitted. 2) Defendant shall provide complete, accurate, verified responses to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories and requests for production of documents within 30 days after service of the orders after hearing.

Sanctions are warranted because Defendant failed to present any justification for her failure to respond to Plaintiff's written discovery requests. Plaintiff requested sanctions of $3500, anticipating its counsel would spend a total of 7 hours preparing the motions, reviewing Defendant's opposition to the motions and drafting replies. Because Defendant did not oppose, and no reply was necessary, the court awards sanctions in the sum of $2250 (4.5 hours spent preparing the motions at $500/hour).

Plaintiff shall submit proposed orders granting the four motions and awarding sanctions. The proposed orders need not include verbatim language from the tentative ruling.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. = (302/CM) | |

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

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?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share