Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
34-2023-00335824-CU-FR-GDS: Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati 12/05/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories in Department 54
Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff Netlinks, Inc.s (Plaintiff) motion to compel defendant in pro per Ahmad Esmati (Ahmad) to serve verified further responses to Plaintiffs Form Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 15.1(a) and 17.1 is GRANTED.
The Court declines to consider Plaintiffs "surreply" filed on November 29, 2023. There is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure allowing for such a filing. An improperly filed surreply brief may be disregarded by the Court. (City of Arcadia v. State Water Res. Control Bd., (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 156, 180.) Ahmad provided his initial responses on August 31, 2023, and supplemental responses on October 23, 2023.
Ahmad did not respond to subpart (a) of Form Interrogatory number 15.1, which asks for all facts upon which Ahmad bases his affirmative defenses. Thus, Plaintiff contends the response is non-compliant. Ahmads opposition does not dispute the foregoing and only states he informed Plaintiff via email on October 9, 2023, that he stands by all the facts mentioned in his affirmative defenses. This is insufficient and not a verified further response to subpart (a), which asks that he set forth all facts upon which he bases his affirmative defenses. Accordingly, a further response is required.
In response to Form Interrogatory number 17.1, which asks for facts, witnesses, and documents for each response that is not an unqualified admission, Ahmads initial response was a simple No. Ahmads supplemental response states: We do not have any unqualified admission. You can send us a list of the admissions which you are interested to investigate further, we will gladly provide you details mentioned in 17.1 (a), (b), (c) and (d).
Plaintiff contends the responses are evasive and non-compliant because Ahmad denied the 31 requests for admissions, but has failed to provide a single fact, a single document, or a single individual with knowledge upon which he bases those denials. (Motion at 3:17-19.)
In opposition, Ahmad maintains Plaintiff has still not provided a list of admissions for 17.1. Plaintiff is not required to provide any list of admissions. Ahmad has denied each RFA, which in and of itself is the list. Further, Ahmad misinterprets the call of Form Interrogatory number 17.1, which asks for information related to any response to an RFA that is not an unqualified admission. As Ahmad has denied each RFA, those denials are not unqualified admissions and, thus, Ahmad must respond to Form Interrogatory number 17.1 and provide all of the facts, witnesses, and documents for each of his denials.
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?”
34-2023-00335824-CU-FR-GDS: Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati 12/05/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories in Department 54
Plaintiffs motion to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 15.1(a) and 17.1 is GRANTED. Ahmad shall serve verified further responses no later than December 19, 2023.
Plaintiffs request for sanctions against Ahmad is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $660 (representing one hour of attorney time at the rate of $600 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee). Sanctions to be paid no later than January 5, 2024, and, if not paid by that date, Plaintiff may prepare for the Court's signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may then be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.
NOTICE:
Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:
To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.
Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §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
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2023-00335824-CU-FR-GDS: Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati 12/05/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories in Department 54
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 forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.