Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories; Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories; Motion to Compel Production; Motion to Deem Facts Admitted
Case Management Conference Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal re: Default Judgment Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal for Failure to Serve 2 Bowie vs. NuEyes Technologies, Inc.
2025-01501793 Motion to Strike Answer
Off Calendar 3 Brainard vs. Brainard
2025-01499684 Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories Motion to Compel Production Motion to Deem Facts Admitted
Defendant Bartley Thomas Brainard’s unopposed motions to compel responses from Plaintiff Bradley Alan Brainard to his form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and request for production of documents, set one, are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses without objection to Defendant’s discovery requests within 20 days of the notice of the ruling.
Defendant’s unopposed motion to deem facts admitted in response to his requests for admission propounded on Plaintiff is also granted.
On 12/17/25, Defendant electronically served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production and Requests for Admission on Plaintiff. (Sternad Decl., ¶¶ 3, 24; Exs. 1, 7.) Defendant followed with a letter informing Plaintiff that he would not be allowing any extensions. (Sternad Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 2.) As of the date of the filing of this motion (1/29/26), Plaintiff had not served any responses. (Sternad Decl., ¶ 7.)
Plaintiff has not opposed these motions.
Because Defendant demonstrated that the discovery requests were served on Plaintiff, the deadline has passed, and no responses were served or have been served as of the date of the hearing, orders compelling responses and production and deeming the requests for admission admitted are appropriate. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280.)
The Court imposes monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $860.00 per motion ($3,440.00 total) payable to Defendant and its
counsel within 30 days of the notice of ruling. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.310(h), and 2023.010.)
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?”
Defendant shall give notice of the ruling
Case Management Conference Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal for Failure to Serve 4 Cortazo vs. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
2024-01435460 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Motion to Compel Production Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions
Plaintiffs Emily Cortazo and Teresa Cortazo Romano’s motion to compel defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. to provide further responses to form interrogatories, set one, is substantively moot.
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant to provide further responses to special interrogatories, set one, is substantively moot except as to no.
30. The motion is granted as to no.
30.
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant to provide further responses to requests for production, set one (“RFPs”), is substantively moot except as to no.
34. The motion is grantd as to no.
34.
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel Defendant to provide further responses to requests for admission, set one (“RFAs”), is substantively moot.
Plaintiff is awarded total sanctions of $937.77 against Defendant. Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is to pay this amount to Plaintiff’s counsel, Knight Law Group LLP, no later than August 17, 2026.
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories A party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories on the grounds that the answer is evasive or incomplete. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(a)(1). The motion must be brought within 45 days of the day responses were served (with 5 extra days of the responses are served by mail). Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(c), 2016.050, 1013.
If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories. Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 245, 255.