Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses; Sanctions
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
Case No.: PCU325958 Date: July 14, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 19-The Honorable Russell P. Burke Motion: Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses by Defendant Valazquez as to (1) Form Interrogatories (2) Special Interrogatories and (3) Requests for Production of Documents; Sanctions Tentative Ruling: (1), (2) and (3): To deny the motions; to deny the requests for sanctions.
Facts Common to (1), (2) and (3) In this negligence, breach of habitability, nuisance and breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment action, Plaintiff sued, amongst other defendants, Defendant Alex Velasquez ("Defendant").
On January 15, 2026, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging the same causes of action.
On February 25, 2026, Plaintiff served first sets of (1) Form Interrogatories (2) Special Interrogatories and (3) Requests for Production of Documents.
On March 18, 2026, Defendant served responses to these sets of discovery.
On March 31, 2026, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter identifying various issues with the sufficiency of the responses and objections, seeking further, supplemental responses by April 14, 2026 or seeking an extension of Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion to compel further responses.
On April 3, 2026, Defendant responded to the meet and confer letter, stating: "In the interest of cooperation and to allow the parties additional time to resolve any issues without court intervention, I agree to the three-week extension of Plaintiff's deadline to file a Motion to Compel, extending the deadline to May 26, 2026. This agreement is made without waiving any objections, rights, or protections previously asserted. I remain willing to meet and confer in good faith. However, I stand by the objections and responses previously served, as they are appropriate, complete, and compliant with my discovery obligations."
No further meet and confer appears to have occurred and these motions were filed May 26, 2026.
In addition to seeking further responses, Plaintiff seeks sanctions of $1,760 as to each motion.
In opposition, Defendant indicates service of documents on May 21, 2026 and that this otherwise satisfies the discovery obligations of Defendant as to the interrogatories.
Authority and Analysis Common to (1), (2) and (3) Meet and Confer A motion to compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration "showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion." (Code of Civil Procedure 2016.040, 2031.310(b)(2))
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?”
The meet and confer requirement is designed "to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order . . . . This, in turn, will lessen the burden on the court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through promotion of informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes." (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016, quoting Townsend v. Superior Ct. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435, internal quotations and citations omitted.)
Thus, there must be a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294.)
"[T]he law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate." (Id.)
The particular level of effort required in each case depends on the circumstances including the amount of discovery propounded, the time available to confer before the motion filing deadline, and the extent to which a party was complicit in the lapse of available time. (Obregon v. Superior Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 432.)
"An evaluation of whether, from the perspective of a reasonable person in the position of the discovering party, additional effort appeared likely to bear fruit, should also be considered. Although some effort is required in all instances, the level of effort that is reasonable is different in different circumstances, and may vary with the prospects for success." (Id. at pp. 432-33.)
To that end, trial courts are entrusted with discretion and judgment to determine the necessary effort required to satisfy the requirement of an informal resolution. (Id. at 433.)
In this matter, the Court notes Plaintiff properly initiated the meet and confer process via the March 31, 2026 letter.
Defendant's timely response to the letter on April 3, 2026, though standing by the responses, invited further discussion to avoid Court intervention and extended the deadline to file these motions to compel further responses by three weeks.
Despite obtaining the extension under the guise of resolving the issues, or at least engaging in further meet and confer efforts, Plaintiff appears to have made no such efforts during the almost two months between Defendant's responsive meet and confer letter and the filing of these motions.
Some higher level of effort, therefore, appears reasonable and Plaintiff was complicit for the two month period between the response to the meet and confer letter and the filing of these motions.
As such, the Court does not find a sufficient meet and confer process evidenced by the single exchange, a period of inaction, and the subsequent filing of these motions.
Therefore, the Court denies the motions and denies the requests for sanctions.
If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary.
The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division.
The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.
Re: Barclays Bank Delaware vs. Martin, Timothy