Bruce Austin vs Infinity Management and Investments, LLC, e t al.

26CV-00012 Bruce Austin vs Infinity Management and Investments, LLC, et al.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, & Requests for Admission; Request for Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admissions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

A motion to compel further responses to discovery must be accompanied by a separate statement, which is a standalone document that sets out, in verbatim, each disputed discovery request, the full response given, and the factual and legal reasons why a further response should be compelled. (See California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.)

Here, the accompanying separate statement is contained within Plaintiff’s motion and fails to adhere to Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 as to its contents.

Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses is denied without prejudice.