Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One; Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One; Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
Defendant is ordered to pay Plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $330 within 10 days.
To the extent Defendant has not served responsive documents, Defendant is ordered to do so within 10 days.
Plaintiff to give notice.
4. LAW OFFICES OF MARK B.
1. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for PLUMMER, PC VS. Admissions, Set One (ROA 711) NETWORKSOLUTIONS.COM 2. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special
Interrogatories, Set One (ROA 727) 3. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One (ROA 732) 4. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One (ROA 752)
The motions are CONTINUED to 9/1/26.
These motions involve written discovery served to Plaintiffs on 2/15/21 by Defendant’s former counsel, Ms. Juarez.
On 11/12/25, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiffs to serve responses to the written discovery. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to serve verified responses within 30 days of the order. The order stated, “The Court declines to award sanctions to either side because both sides could have easily avoided this dispute by making a reasonable compromise rather than incurring attorney fees. The parties should engage in discovery cooperatively. The Court will not tolerate gamesmanship or delay tactics.” The order further stated, “In future, if any party files or opposes discovery motions on grounds that could have been resolved by diligent efforts to meet and confer, that party and their counsel will be subject to sanctions.”
In these motions, Defendant contends Plaintiffs’ Court-ordered responses were deficient.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040(a), amended effective 1/1/26, provides, “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion.”
On 2/2/26, Defendant’s counsel filed this motion after sending meet and confer emails on 1/27/26. Defendant’s counsel also requested an extension to file the present motions in order to arrange a telephonic conference regarding the dispute. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 3.) Mr. Plummer told the legal assistant at defense counsel’s office they had sent “50 pages of garbage” and declined to extend the motion deadline. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 4.)
In opposition to the motion, Plaintiffs assert the parties had an agreement that supplemental responses would be served by 3/2/26 and Defendant prematurely filed the motion which Plaintiff was engaged in a jury trial. Plaintiffs also assert the discovery is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs served supplemental responses on 6/29/26. (Exhibit C.)
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?”
Plaintiffs have not filed separate statements of discovery in dispute. (Rule 3.1345.)
Both sides have failed to make adequate efforts to meet and confer. The parties’ counsel are required to engage in an in-person, telephonic, or videoconference discussion of the dispute under the recently-amended section 2016.040. Defendant’s counsel should have diligently attempted to comply with their meet and confer obligations by scheduling a conference upon receiving Plaintiffs’ responses. Plaintiffs should have promptly amended their responses, granted an extension if necessary, cooperated in attempts to schedule a conference, and should not have called Defendant’s meet-and-confer correspondence “garbage.”
Counsel shall comply with section 2016.040 with regard to any remaining dispute no later than 7/24/26.
No later than 7/31/26, Defendant’s counsel shall file and serve a supplemental separate statement of discovery in dispute regarding any remaining disputed responses/supplemental responses. Defendant’s counsel shall also file and serve a declaration describing their compliance with this order.
No later than 8/7/26, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall also file a supplemental separate statement and declaration.
Neither party is invited to file additional points and authorities regarding the motion and any such filing will be disregarded by the Court.
Either side’s counsel who fails to meet and confer in good faith will be subject to sanctions. Failure to exercise civility and professionalism in compliance with the State Bar and Orange County Bar Association Guidelines will also result in sanctions. Moreover, the Court may appoint a discovery referee, with costs borne by the parties, if the parties are unable to conduct discovery cooperatively. (Code Civ. Proc. § 639.)
The Court also expects the parties to engage in similar meet and confer efforts regarding the other pending discovery motions which have been continued to 9/1/26. (ROAs 717, 722, 737, and 742.)