Motion to Compel further responses to special interrogatories
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
25CV009026: WALKER, et al. vs COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH, A NONPROFIT CORPORATION, et al. 05/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel further responses to special interrogatories against Dignity Health in Department 8A
Tentative Ruling
NO APPEARANCE REQUIRED
Plaintiff Emilliano Walkers (Plaintiff) motion to compel Defendant Dignity Health (Dignity) to serve Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and request for sanctions, is ruled upon as follows.
There is a trial date presently set in this matter for March 29, 2027.
By way of this motion, Plaintiff seeks to compel Dignitys further responses to his propounded Special Interrogatories, Set One: SROG Nos. 9, [12][1], 18, 22, 25, 26, 42, 44, 45, 46, and 60. (Ntc. Mot.) Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $5,850, against Dignity and its counsel. (Ibid.)
On June 6, 2025, Plaintiff served four sets of written discovery on Dignity, including Special Interrogatories, Set One, which consisted of 78 Special Interrogatories. (Heller Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) Dignity provided its responses to the subject discovery on August 25, 2025. (Id. at ¶ 3, Exh. 2.) Subsequently, the Parties met and conferred, by way of written correspondence, telephone call, and email, to discuss Plaintiffs perceived deficiencies with Dignitys initial responses. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-7.) On November 29, 2025, Dignity served further responses to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set One. (Id. at ¶ 8, Exh. 7.)
The Parties continued to meet and confer, by way of written correspondence, telephone call, and email, to discuss Plaintiffs continued perceived deficiencies with Dignitys further responses. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs counsel represents, that during a case management conference on January 23, 2026, Dignity promised that it would be serving its second further responses by January 31, 2026. (Ibid.) Plaintiffs counsel maintains that Dignity failed to provide the promised second further responses, and thus, Dignitys responses remain deficient.
Dignity opposes the motion. Dignity does not substantively oppose the merits as it relates to Special Interrogatories numbers 9, 12, 22, 42, 44, 45, 46, and 60. Rather, Dignity simply contends that it has now served second amended responses to these interrogatories. (Oppn, pp. 1:27-2:2; Foley Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. A.) However, a motion is made when it is filed and served. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005.5
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?”
25CV009026: WALKER, et al. vs COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH, A NONPROFIT CORPORATION, et al. 05/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel further responses to special interrogatories against Dignity Health in Department 8A
as a concession on the merits. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn.4.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion to compel Dignitys the further responses to Special Interrogatories numbers 9, 12, 22, 42, 44, 45, 46, and 60 is GRANTED. Dignity shall serve verified further responses, no later than May 29, 2026, unless the Parties agree in writing to extend the response deadline. To the extent Dignity has already served such verified responses, it need not re-serve the them. The Court expresses no opinion about the sufficiency of any responses served after this motion was filed.
As it relates to Special Interrogatories Nos. 18, 25, and 26, Dignity argues that these interrogatories are overly broad and burdensome. Dignity contends that Plaintiff does not carry his burden to show that Dignity waived its objections raised in its amended responses, and further, each of these interrogatories would require one of more of Dignitys employees to spend between 650 to 1,300 hours searching patient charts in order to provide a response. (See Oppn, pp. 2-4.)
However, as Plaintiff aptly points out in reply, despite the broad assertion of burden, Dignity fails to support this contention with any evidence properly before this Court. The discovery burden is undue only if the inconvenience and expense of responding clearly outweigh the benefits likely to be obtained if the interrogatories are answered. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2019.030(a), 2030.090(b).) The objecting party must supply evidence to support its claim of undue or excessive burden, showing the quantum of work required.
Absent such evidence, the trial court has nothing upon which to base a comparative judgment that any responsive burden would be undue or excessive, relative to the likelihood of admissible evidence being discovered. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549-550; see also West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417-418 [Undue burden objections must be accompanied by a specific factual showing setting forth the amount of work necessary to respond to the subject discovery].)
Thus, even if they were not waived, Dignitys objections of overbreadth and undue burden would be OVERRULED. As this was the sole basis for Dignitys opposition, Plaintiffs motion to compel Dignitys further responses to Special Interrogatories numbers 18, 25, and 26 is GRANTED. Dignity shall serve verified further responses, no later than May 29, 2026, unless the Parties agree in writing to extend the response deadline.
Disposition
Plaintiffs motion to compel Dignitys further responses to his propounded Special
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
25CV009026: WALKER, et al. vs COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH, A NONPROFIT CORPORATION, et al. 05/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel further responses to special interrogatories against Dignity Health in Department 8A
Interrogatories, Set One: Interrogatories numbers 9, 12, 18, 22, 25, 26, 42, 44, 45, 46, and 60 is GRANTED. Dignity shall serve verified further responses, no later than May 29, 2026, unless the Parties agree in writing to extend the response deadline. Plaintiffs request for monetary sanctions is DENIED as the Court finds that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust under the circumstances.
To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 8a at 916-874-5754 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.)
Please check your tentative ruling prior to the next Court date at www.saccourt.ca.gov prior to the above referenced hearing date.
If oral argument is requested, the parties may and are encouraged to appear by Zoom with the links below:
To join by Zoom Link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16108301121 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864, ID 16108301121
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf
A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.
If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
25CV009026: WALKER, et al. vs COMMONSPIRIT HEALTH, A NONPROFIT CORPORATION, et al. 05/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel further responses to special interrogatories against Dignity Health in Department 8A
forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
This minute order is effective immediately. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order or further notice is necessary.
[1] The Court notes that Plaintiff appears to have omitted Special Interrogatory No. 12
from the corresponding Notice of Motion. Nevertheless, the Court will address this interrogatory as it appears to have been erroneously omitted from the Notice; Plaintiff has included discussion of this special interrogatory in the corresponding briefing and separate statement. Further, Dignity has addressed this interrogatory in opposing the motion.