RINGGOLD vs BURGETT INC., et al.

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 Court’s 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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

Defendant Burgett Inc. dba Pianodisc’s (“Defendant”) motion to compel Plaintiff in pro per Edward Ringgold (“Plaintiff”) to serve responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories – General, Sets One through Four, is ruled upon as follows.

On July 2, 2026, the Court issued a tentative ruling granting Defendant’s motion. In its ruling, the Court stated:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006400: RINGGOLD vs BURGETT INC., et al. 08/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories - General, Sets 1-4 in Department 8C

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that he served responses after the motion was filed. (See Ringgold Decl., ¶ 4.) However, Plaintiff does not specify the date that he served the responses, and the responses are not attached to Plaintiff’s opposition. In reply, Defendant’s counsel declares that Plaintiff has not served responses. (Rediger Decl. ISO Reply, ¶ 4.)

Here, there is no dispute that Plaintiff did not serve responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Sets One through Four, by the statutory deadline and did not obtain an extension to serve responses. The evidence before the Court indicates that Plaintiff has not subsequently served responses. While Plaintiff asserts in his opposition that he served responses after this motion was filed, this is disputed by Defendant’s counsel. Since Plaintiff’s opposition does not specify the date he purportedly served responses and does not attach the responses, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not served responses. Moreover, even if Plaintiff had served belated responses, that would not render this motion moot. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408-409.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve verified responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Sets One, Two, Three, and Four, without objections, by no later than August 5, 2026.

(07/02/2026 Tentative Ruling, pp. 3-4, underline in original.)

At the hearing on July 6, 2026, Plaintiff maintained that he had served responses after the motion was filed. The Court thus continued the hearing to today’s date and directed Plaintiff to file a supplemental declaration with a copy of the responses by July 13, 2026. Defendant was given leave to file a reply by July 22, 2026.

In his supplemental declaration, Plaintiff provides “true and correct copies of his responses to Form Interrogatories—General, Sets 1-4.” (Ringgold Decl., ¶ 21, Exh. A.) The responses, which were served on defense counsel on January 16, 2026, consist of an omnibus response that combines into one document Plaintiff’s responses to all four sets of form interrogatories at issue in this motion. (Ringgold Decl., Exh. A, pp. 5-7.) Responding in this omnibus manner is inappropriate, since the four sets of interrogatories do not include the same individual interrogatories and include different definitions for the term “INCIDENT.” Additionally, Plaintiff did not respond to several of the individual interrogatories that were propounded in at

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006400: RINGGOLD vs BURGETT INC., et al. 08/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories - General, Sets 1-4 in Department 8C

least one set. For instance, Defendant propounded Form Interrogatory Nos. 2.1, 2.2, and 2.5-2.13 with Set One, but Plaintiff responded only to Form Interrogatory No. 2.1. (Compare Rediger Decl., Exh. B, pp. 2-3 with Ringgold Decl., Exh. A, p. 5.) Additionally, Defendant propounded Form Interrogatory Nos. 8.1-8.8 with all four sets, but Plaintiff only responded to No. 8.1. (Compare Rediger Decl., Exh. B with Ringgold Decl., Exh. A, p. 6.)

Thus, the Court declines to find that Plaintiff’s belated responses served on January 16, 2026 moot the present motion. The Court is unable to construe the responses as being applicable to any particular set of interrogatories and thus cannot conclude that Plaintiff subsequently served responses to any set after this motion was filed. And even so, a belated response does not require a finding that the motion to compel is moot. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408-409; see also Code Civ. Proc. § 1005.5 [motion “is deemed to have been made and to be pending before the court for all purposes, upon the due service and filing of the notice of motion”].)

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve verified responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Sets One, Two, Three, and Four, without objections, by no later than September 2, 2026.

In its July 2, 2026 tentative ruling, the Court granted Defendant’s sanctions requests and imposed sanctions in the amount of $1,230.00, representing 2.6 hours at $450.00 per hour and the $60.00 filing fee. Defendant’s counsel declares that she spent an additional 2.0 hours reviewing Plaintiff’s supplemental declaration and drafting Defendant’s supplemental reply, resulting in $900.00 in additional fees. The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ.

Proc. § 2030.290(c).) Plaintiff has not shown that he acted with substantial compliance or that other circumstances would make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Thus, Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $2,130.00, representing 4.6 hours at $450.00 per hour and the $60.00 filing fee. Sanctions shall be paid by no later than August 17, 2026, and if not paid by that date, Defendant 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.)

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.)