Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Discovery; Request for Admissions Deemed Admitted; Request for Monetary Sanctions
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 13 Honorable Daniel T. Nishigaya R. Belligan, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2240
DATE: July 15, 2026 TIME: 10:00 A.M. TO CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING, YOU MUST CALL (408) 808-6856 BEFORE 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY PRIOR TO THE HEARING. You must also inform all other sides to the issue before 4:00 P.M. the day prior to the hearing that you plan to contest the ruling. The Court will not hear argument, and the tentative ruling will be adopted if these notifications are not made. (Cal. Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1); Civil Local Rule 8.D.)
LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 24PR198832 THE ESTATE OF MIGNON GIBSON Motion to Compel & RFAs Deemed Admitted
Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 1 for tentative ruling. LINE 2-6 25PR199483 The Stiebel Family Trust Continuing proceedings re: Vesco Hearing & Pending Matters
- oo0oo -
Calendar Line 1
Case Name: THE ESTATE OF MIGNON GIBSON Case No.: 24PR198832
INTRODUCTION
Three individuals, including Camella Nair (“Nair”) and Charles Gibson (“Gibson”) have petitioned the Court for probate of the will of Mignon Gibson and/or for letters of administration of Mignon Gibson’s estate.
Currently before the Court is Nair’s motion to compel initial responses to discovery requests served on Gibson and for an order deeming the facts stated in Nair’s requests for admission admitted. The motion is unopposed.
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Nair asserts that she served form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admission on Gibson on February 24, 2026. After two extensions of time, no responses were received.
DISCUSSION I. LEGAL BACKGROUND
“Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel [initial] responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit . . . .” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404
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?”
Generally, when a party has failed to timely provide initial responses to the discovery requests at issue, he or she has waived any objection to them. (§§ 2030.290, subd. (a) [A party who fails to serve timely responses to interrogatories waives any objections to the requests, including those based on privilege or the work product doctrine.]; 2031.300, subd. (a) [a party who fails to serve timely responses to a request for production or inspection of documents “waives ‘any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).”]; 2033.280, subd. (a) [A party who fails to serve timely responses to a request for admissions waives any objections to the requests, including those based on privilege or the work product doctrine]; see also Scottsdale Ins.
Co. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, 273 [waiver occurs where the
1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 3
responding party fails to timely raise an objection in its initial response]; Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Court (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1125.)
Additionally, where the responding party fails to respond to requests for admission, “[t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (§ 2033.280, subd. (b).) “The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (§ 2033.280, subd. (c).)
II. MERITS OF THE MOTION
Here, Nair has shown that Gibson did not provide responses to her discovery requests. Gibson has not moved for relief from waiver. (See §§ 2031.300, subd. (a) [requests for production]; 2030.290, subd. (a) [interrogatories]; 2033.280, subd. (a) [requests for admission].)
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Gibson is ordered to provide code-compliant, objection free responses to Nair’s form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production within 30 days of the date of this court’s final order on this motion. The matters stated in Nair’s requests for admission are deemed admitted.
III. NAIR’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
Nair requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $807.50. This amount is comprised of 1.7 hours of attorney time in attempting to contact Gibson and drafting the motion, at $475 per hour.
Sections 2030.290, subdivision (c), 2031.300, subdivision (c), and 2033.280, subdivision (d) each provide for mandatory monetary sanctions. Nairdoes not contend that there is any reason not to award the sanctions sought. The court finds counsel’s hourly rate reasonable and time spent reasonable. Accordingly, the request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $807.50. Gibson is ordered to pay $807.50 to Nair’s counsel within 30 days of the date of the court’s order on this motion.
CONCLUSION
The motion is GRANTED. Gibson is ordered to provide code-compliant, objection free responses to Nair’s form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production within 30 days of the date of this court’s final order. The matters stated in Nair’s requests for admission are deemed admitted. Nair’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $807.50. Gibson is ordered to pay $807.50 to Nair’s counsel within 30 days of the date of the court’s order on this motion.
The Court will prepare the final order.
4