GONZALEZ vs PENSKE LEASING AND RENTAL COMPANY

25CV111803: GONZALEZ vs PENSKE LEASING AND RENTAL COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 07/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Genaro Morales Gonzalez (Plaintiff) CRS# 726738730549 in Department 20

Tentative Ruling - 07/13/2026 Karin Schwartz

The Motion to Compel Motion to Compel Further Responses to Supp Discovery filed by Genaro Morales Gonzalez on 05/27/2026 is Denied.

Plaintiff Genaro Moralez Gonzalez’s Motion to Compel is DENIED.

Plaintiff Genaro Morales Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action on February 19, 2025 regarding a motor vehicle accident that took place on July 19, 2023 against Defendants Penske Leasing and Rental Company, Republic National Distributing Company, LLC; Young’s Market Company, LLC; and Antonio Lopez Guzman.

On April 15, 2025, Plaintiff propounded written discovery on Defendant Antonio Guzman (“Defendant”). On June 13, 2025, Defendant served verified responses.

On March 13, 2026, Plaintiff served Defendant with Supplemental Interrogatories, which requested Defendant to identify and update any responses to prior interrogatories that were no longer correct or incomplete. On April 14, 2026, Defendant served verified responses to the Supplemental Interrogatories.

On April 16, 2026, Plaintiff met and conferred with Defendant, requesting further amended responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 12.4, 13.1, 15.1, 16.1-16.5, and 17.1. (Belotti Decl. Exh. E.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant has information to provide further substantive responses to the foregoing interrogatories in light of the further discovery that had taken place since Defendant initial responses, including subpoenas of Plaintiff’s medical records; taking Plaintiff’s deposition; retention of an orthopedic expert; and service of written discovery. (Id.) On or about April 14 and 24, 2026, Defendant served a verified amended supplemental interrogatory response to Form Interrogatory Nos. 2.6, 12.5, 12.6, 13.1, and 16.1, but otherwise stated that he would not provide a supplemental response as to the other interrogatories identified by Plaintiff. (Bellotti Decl. Exh. F.)

Plaintiff moves to compel further supplemental responses to his supplemental interrogatories. Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions. 25CV111803: GONZALEZ vs PENSKE LEASING AND RENTAL COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 07/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Genaro Morales Gonzalez (Plaintiff) CRS# 726738730549 in Department 20 A party may propound a supplemental interrogatory to elicit any later-acquired information bearing on answers previously made by a party in response to interrogatories. (C.C.P. § 2030.070(a).) A party who has responded to written discovery has no duty to update or amend his or her answers, nor any duty to correct errors or include new information discovered later. (Biles v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1328.)

Here, Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories Nos. 15.1, 16.2-16.5, and 17.1. Plaintiff acknowledges that Defendant responded to these Form Interrogatories on June 13, 2025. However, Plaintiff appears to argue that in light of the supplemental interrogatories served on March 13, 2026, Plaintiff is now entitled to compel further responses to those same interrogatories in what would otherwise be an untimely motion to compel further discovery responses to Form Interrogatories.

Defendant’s verified responses to Plaintiff’s supplemental interrogatories are code-compliant and appear to be based on information known to Defendant at the time of that response. Defendant has provided a verified response stating that there were no changes to be made as to certain interrogatories, at the time of the response.

Pursuant to the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel and request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?

THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select "Search" 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select "Click to Contest this Ruling" 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select "Proceed"

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV111803: GONZALEZ vs PENSKE LEASING AND RENTAL COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. 07/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Genaro Morales Gonzalez (Plaintiff) CRS# 726738730549 in Department 20 BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely.

BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.