Straoud et al vs Rose Garden et al

Plaintiff served the discovery at issue on August 1, 2025. On September 2, 2025, defense

counsel requested a 30-day extension to October 6, 2025, which Plaintiff’s counsel granted. On

October 2, 2025, defense counsel requested a two-week extension to October 20. Plaintiff’s

counsel agreed, stating Plaintiff would grant one additional extension. (Saltzman Decl. ¶¶ 10-13.)

On October 20, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel received a telephone call from defense counsel Jessica

Munoz about discovery issues she was having in obtaining responsive documents. Because the

parties were attempting to resolve the matter by settlement, Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to stay

discovery for one month to November 20, 2025, so defense counsel could prepare an evaluation

report to her client and carrier to obtain settlement authority. The parties agreed they would

revisit the discovery stay closer to November 20 to determine if it would remain in

effect. Plaintiff’s counsel states she agreed to the discovery stay because defense counsel

specifically represented that she would make a good faith effort to attempt to resolve the matter

informally. (Saltzman Decl. ¶¶ 14-15.)

Thereafter on November 12, Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to obtain an update regarding

settlement and defense counsel failed to respond. On November 19, 2025, having heard

nothing, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed defense counsel that because defense counsel failed to

adhere to the parties’ agreement related to the discovery stay, responses were due on

November 26, 2025. Defense counsel did not respond or provide responses on November 26,

2025. On December 1, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel again emailed defense counsel regarding

discovery responses and stated that objections were waived. (Saltzman Decl. ¶¶ 16-20.)

On December 2, 2025, defense counsel responded and apologized for not responding earlier.

She stated she was preparing for a month-long trial that was to start on January 5, 2026, and

had been unable to generate the report to obtain settlement authority. Defense counsel also

stated that she believed she could obtain settlement authority if given extra time and if Plaintiff’s

counsel was willing to reset dates. (Saltzman Decl. ¶¶ 21-22.)

Plaintiff’s counsel responded that as of December 2, Defendant had 122 days to prepare

responses. Plaintiff’s counsel then offered one final extension to December 16, 2025, for

Defendant to serve its verified responses and documents, provided the responses were without

objections. On December 5, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a follow-up email about the December

2 offer, because no response to her email was received. On December 5, 2025, defense counsel

responded that she agreed to the proposed discovery extension and confirmed that Defendant

had until December 16, 2025 to serve verified responses and documents without objections.

(Saltzman Decl. ¶¶ 23-26 and Exhs. L-M.)

On December 18, 2025, Plaintiff filed her motions to compel responses to the discovery at issue,

because no responses were served. (Saltzman Decl. ¶ 27.)

On April 2, 2026, Plaintiff filed an additional supplemental points and authorities in support of the

motion and a supplemental declaration. Plaintiff states that on December 19, 2025, Rose

Garden served Plaintiff with responses to Form Interrogatories and RFPs. The responses

included objections and incomplete responses. Responses to the Special Interrogatories were

not served and as of April 2, 2026, still had not been served.

On January 13, 2026, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter addressing the deficient and

untimely responses served on December 19, 2025. On January 31, 2026, defense counsel sent

an email that did not agree to provide further responses. Defense counsel also stated that

Defendant was going to move for relief from the waiver of objections; Plaintiff states no such

motions were filed. Defense counsel also agreed to serve a supplemental response to Form

Interrogatory 15.1, but as of April 2, 2026, a supplemental response has not been served. (Allen

Supp. Decl. ¶¶ 4-6.)

In opposition filed on April 15, 2026, Defendant Rose Garden states that Defendant served

verified responses to the Form interrogatories and RFPs on December 19, 2025. In addition,

verified responses to the Special Interrogatories were served on April 14, 2026. Therefore,

Defendant contends the motions are moot.

With respect to Plaintiff’s arguments in the supplemental filings, Defendant asserts that the

problem with Plaintiff’s arguments is that Plaintiff did not file motions to compel further

responses, therefore, the responses must have been satisfactory. Defendant also asserts that a

party cannot simply convert a motion to compel responses to a motion to compel further

responses by submitting a declaration and supplemental points and authorities. It asserts no

separate statement was filed and Plaintiff did not timely file separate motions to compel further

responses with respect to the Form Interrogatories and RFPs. Therefore, Defendant contends,

the Court has no further jurisdiction to compel further responses to the Form Interrogatories or

RFPs.

Defendant also contends that should Plaintiff seek responses without objections, such issue is to

be determined at Defendant’s motion to be relieved from objections, which Defendant contends

is set for hearing on August 18, 2026, although no such motion is demonstrated as being set.

Finally, Defendant asserts sanctions should not be ordered, because it was a difficult time for

defense counsel because while the parties were meeting and conferring over discovery

extensions, defense counsel was preparing for a one-month elder abuse trial that was to begin in

January 2026. Given there were 15 expert witnesses, defense counsel states she could not

adequately manage the discovery responses or give Saltzman the courtesy of responses for

emails, for which defense counsel apologizes. (Munoz Decl. ¶ 3.)

Analysis

Defendant’s argument that the Court has no jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s

responses served after the motions to compel were filed is without merit. In Sinaiko Healthcare

Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390 (Sinaiko), the

Court noted that “[i]f a party fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories, then by operation

of law, all objections that it could assert to those interrogatories are waived. [(Citation.)] Unless

that party obtains relief from its waiver, the propounding party is entitled to move ... for an order

compelling the response to which the propounding party is entitled—that is, a response without

objection, and that substantially complies with the provision governing the form (§ 2030.210) and

completeness (§ 2030.220) of interrogatory responses.” (Id. at p. 408.) The same results apply

to RFPs under section 2031.300.

The Sinaiko Court also discussed the trial court’s authority in a situation in which a motion to

compel responses is brought and untimely responses are served after the motion is filed.

“Whether a particular response does resolve satisfactorily the issues raised by a motion is a

matter best determined by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion, based on the

circumstances of the case. ... If the propounding party proceeds with the motion, however, the

trial court has the discretion to rule on the motion. The trial court might compel responses

without objection if it finds no legally valid responses have been provided to one or more

interrogatories; it might deny the motion to compel responses as essentially unnecessary, in

whole or in part, and just impose sanctions; it might treat the motion as one under section

2030.300 [or section 2031.310] and either determine that further answers are required, or order

the propounding party to ‘meet and confer’ ... and file a separate statement (Cal. Rules of Court,

rule 3.1020(a)(2), (c)); or it might take the motion off calendar, thereby requiring the propounding

party to file a motion under section 2030.300 [or section 2031.310].” (Id. at p. 408.)

The reasoning behind the Court’s conclusion with respect to the trial court’s discretion was that it

would be unfair for a responding party to wait until the hearing on a section 2030.290 (or section

2031.300) motion was imminent and then serve a set of evasive incomplete responses that

thereby unilaterally deprive the court of authority to hear the motion. (Ibid.)

As the Sinaiko case demonstrates, the Court has many options when, as here, it is faced

with untimely responses. At this time, to the extent objections were asserted, they are untimely

and waived. In addition, given the number of discovery requests at issue, and that Plaintiff has

sent a meet and confer regarding the RFP responses and form interrogatory responses, the

Court is continuing the hearing of Plaintiff’s motions for the parties to meet and confer over the

responses provided, including special interrogatories, and for the motions to be treated as

motions to compel further responses under sections 2030.300 and 2031.310. With the continued

hearing, Plaintiff should file separate statements, supplemental arguments, and notice any

additional sanctions sought related to compelling further responses, Defendant may file

supplemental oppositions, and Plaintiff may file supplemental replies according to code.

Sanctions

With respect to compelling responses, Plaintiff seeks sanctions as follows against Defendant

Rose Garden and its attorneys of record, Kelly Trotter & Franzen:

• Special Interrogatories: $3,245 comprised of 1 hour research, 2.8 hours drafting

attorney Allen’s contribution to the motion, 0.6 hours to review the first draft, 0.5

hours to draft the declaration, for a total of 4.9 hours at $650/hour, plus $60 filing

fee. (Allen Decl. ¶¶ 10-13.)

• Form Interrogatory Motion: $840, which is comprised of 0.9 hours to draft the

motion, 0.3 hours to review the first draft, for a total of 1.2 hours at $650/hour,

plus $60 filing fee. (Allend Decl. ¶¶ 14-17.)

• RFP Motion: $7,800 comprised of 6.0 hours preparing the motion, 3 hours to draft

the Saltman Declaration, 1 hour to review and research Rose Garden’s

opposition, 1.5 hours to prepare the reply, and 0.5 hours to appear at the hearing,

for a total of 12 hours at $650/hour, plus $60 filing fee.

Sanctions are warranted given it appears that it was the filing of these motions that caused

Defendant to serve responses, the Court awards the amounts sought for the special and form

interrogatories motions. As for the RFP motion, 12 total hours is not demonstrated to be

reasonable given what is at issue and counsel charges $650/hour. The amount related to

preparing the motion is reduced to 3 hours. In addition, no reply was filed, so 1.5 hours for its

preparation is not demonstrated to be reasonable. Therefore, the Court awards a total of 7.5

hours, or $4,875, plus the $60 filing fee for a total of $4,935 for the RFP motion.

RULING

For the reasons stated above, the Court CONTINUES the motion to compel responses to be

considered as a motion to compel further responses under Code of Civil Procedure sections

2030.300 and 2031.310. The hearing date for the continued hearing is May 22, 2026, at 8:30

a.m., in Dept. S14. At this time, to the extent objections were asserted in responses, they are

untimely and waived.

The Court Orders the parties to meet and confer in person, by telephone, or videoconference

over responses at issue. With the continued hearing, Plaintiff should file separate statements,

supplemental arguments, and may notice any additional sanctions sought related to compelling

further responses, Defendant may file supplemental oppositions, and Plaintiff may file

supplemental replies according to code. To the extent a hearing is no longer necessary,

Plaintiff’s counsel shall immediately notify the court clerk and file a Notice of Withdrawal.

As for sanctions related to the motions to compel responses, the Court awards the following

amounts in sanctions against Defendant Rose Garden and its counsel of record Kelly Trotter &

Franzen, joint & several:

• Special Interrogatory Motion - $3,245;

• Form Interrogatory Motion - $840; and

• Request for Production Motion -- $4,875.

All monetary sanctions shall be due on or before May 6, 2026.