Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
34-2023-00335824-CU-FR-GDS: Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati 07/23/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 54
Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff Netlinks, Inc.s (Plaintiff) motion to compel further responses from Defendant Ahmad Esmati (Defendant) to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, is ruled upon as follows.
The Court refers the parties to its ruling on Plaintiffs motion to compel further responses from Defendant to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set Two on todays calendar for general background about the present discovery dispute as there is some overlap between the two motions. For the present motion, Defendants response to Request No. 12 states:
I hereby object to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing or sampling of Document Request No.
12. My objection is based on Lack of Privity and Parole Evidence Rule.
There is absolutely no contract between the Defendants and the Plaintiff. The contract is between two LLCs (Cisnet Global IT Solutions and Netlinks Ltd) registered and licensed in Afghanistan. These two companies are independent legal entities.
This request should be addressed to Cisnet Global IT Solutions in Kabul Afghanistan by the Plaintiff and is out of the scope of this lawsuit.
The Plaintiff should respect terms and conditions of the contract it signed with Cisnet Global IT Solutions.
Similarly, Defendants response to Request No. 16 states:
I hereby object to comply with the demand for inspection, copying, testing or sampling of Document Request No.
16. My objection is based on Lack of Privity and Parole Evidence Rule.
There is absolutely no contract between the Defendants and the Plaintiff. The contract is between two LLCs (Cisnet Global IT Solutions and Netlinks Ltd) registered and licensed in Afghanistan. These two companies are independent legal entities.
The Plaintiff should respect terms and conditions of the contract it signed with Cisnet Global IT Solutions.
These objections are similar to the objections asserted by Defendant in response to Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories, Set Two. The objections fail for the same reasons discussed in the Courts ruling on Plaintiffs other motion to compel on todays calendar.
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 07/23/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 54
Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion to compel further responses is GRANTED as to Request Nos. 12 and 16.
As for Request Nos. 13-15, Defendants responses stated that he will comply with the request and produce certain documents. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant did not initially produce documents as he stated he would, and then when documents were produced, they were not the documents identified and were not responsive to the requests. Plaintiff thus asks the Court order Defendant to comply with the request and produce the documents, like he said he would. (See Plaintiffs Separate Statement, p. 9:3-4.) A motion to compel further responses is not the proper avenue to compel a party to produce documents after stating he would comply with a document request. Such a motion must be brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320. Plaintiffs motion does not cite this statute. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion is DENIED as to Request Nos. 13-15.
Plaintiffs sanctions request is also DENIED, as counsel only submitted one declaration for both motions on todays calendar, so the Court presumes that the fees incurred as described in the declaration apply to both motions, and the Court granted Plaintiffs sanctions request in relation to its ruling on the interrogatories motion.
Defendant shall serve verified further responses to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, Nos. 12 and 16 by no later than August 16, 2024 or a later date agreed upon in writing by the parties.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)
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.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2023-00335824-CU-FR-GDS: Netlinks, Inc vs. Ahmad Esmati 07/23/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents in Department 54
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-cagov.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 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 forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.