Plaintiff Neal Jackson’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
(47) Tentative Ruling
Re: Neal Jackson v. All American Auto Inc. Superior Court Case No. 25CECG03552
Hearing Date: July 22, 2026 (Dept. 502)
Motion: Plaintiff Neal Jackson’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One
If oral argument is timely requested, it will be entertained on Thursday, July 23, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 502
Tentative Ruling:
Plaintiff Neal Jackson’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, is moot.
Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is granted in the amount of $1,022.50, to be paid by American Auto and its counsel to plaintiff’s counsel at Sierra Litigation. Sanctions shall be paid within 30 days of the notice of entry of this order.
Explanation:
Plaintiff, Neal Jackson (“Jackson” or “plaintiff”) makes this motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One from defendant All American Auto Inc. dba American Auto Credit Inc. (“American Auto” or “defendant.)
On November18, 2025, Jackson served Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, on American Auto seeking documents relating to American Auto’s communications with Jackson and other materials relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. (Chavez Decl., ¶2, Ex. A.) American Auto served responses on January 6, 2026. Those responses consisted largely of 28 boilerplate objections and statements that responsive documents were not within American Auto’s possession, custody, or control. (Chavez Decl., ¶3, Ex. B.) However, Defendant's own discovery responses reveal that such documents exist. In its Form Interrogatory responses, American Auto identified text message communications between American Auto’s representatives and Jackson, including communications involving Alam Kasam and Usama Yasin. (Chavez Decl., ¶4, Ex. C.)
A motion to compel further must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating an attempt to resolve the matter informally. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b).) On January 30, 2026, plaintiff sent a detailed meet-and-confer letter explaining the deficiencies in American Auto’s responses and requesting that American Auto serve amended responses and produce responsive documents, including the text message communications referenced in Defendant's interrogatory responses. (Chavez Decl., ¶7, Ex. D.) Plaintiff also attempted to contact defense counsel by telephone and
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?”
left voicemail regarding the discovery dispute. (Chavez Decl., ¶8.) American Auto does not dispute it never responded.
In accordance with Fresno Local Rule 2.1.17, Jackson filed a Request for Pretrial Discovery Conference on February 11, 2026. (Chavez Decl., ¶10, Ex. E.) The Court denied the request but authorized the Jackson to file a discovery motion addressing the dispute set forth in the request. (Chavez Decl., ¶11, Ex. F.)
On May 18, 2026, Defendant American Auto served Jackson’s counsel, First Amended Responses to Jackson’s Request for Production of Documents propounded on American Auto, including 67 pages of exhibits. (Dawood Decl., ¶7., Ex. C)
Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is moot.
Furthermore, Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (d), provides that failing to respond to discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. A court may impose a monetary sanction for a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.030(a); 2031.310, subd. (h).)
Jackson requests monetary sanctions of $1,022.50, comprised of attorney's fees and $60 of filing fees. Here, American Auto failed to provide the additional responses as requested by Jackson.
American Auto argues that sanctions are not warranted for two reasons. American Auto first argues that it acted with good faith where in its January 6, 2026 responses, it “promised to amend their response once the documents are available and found. (All American Auto Inc.’s Response, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”).”(Dawood Decl., ¶3.)
However, in addition to the boilerplate objections to American Auto’s response, the promise for later production was not very compelling as it did not identify what would later be produced, and did not address Jackson’s concerns as American Auto’s response was written before the logical inconsistencies pointed out in Jackson’s Meet and Confer Letter:
It is anticipated that further discovery, independent investigation, legal research and analysis will supply additional facts and add meaning to known facts, as well as establish entirely new factual conclusions and legal contentions, all of which may lead to substantial additions to, changes in and variations from the contentions herein set forth. The following responses are given without prejudice to Responding Party’s right to produce evidence of any subsequently discovered fact or later recalled.
(Dawood Decl., ¶3, Ex. A.)
Second, American Auto further contests that “Plaintiff's counsel never articulated any specific, substantive deficiencies that remained unresolved.” (American Auto’s Opposition Papers, pg. 5:6-7.) The Court disagrees. Jackson’s January 30, 2026 meet and confer letter, which went unanswered, explicitly explained the deficiencies and incongruities with respect to American Auto’s responses to document production and interrogatories.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is granted in the amount of $1,022.50, to be paid by American Auto and its counsel to plaintiff’s counsel at Sierra Litigation. Sanctions shall be paid within 30 days of the notice of entry of this order.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: lmg on 7-20-26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
10