NORDSTROM, INC. vs EMER

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.

25CV023298: NORDSTROM, INC. vs EMER 07/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One in Department 8C

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 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***

Plaintiff Nordstrom, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel Defendant in pro per Alex Emer (“Defendant”) to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admission is ruled upon as follows.

Background

Plaintiff filed this action on September 30, 2025. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has engaged in “years-long efforts to exploit and defraud” Plaintiff by improperly attempting to pursue arbitration with Plaintiff over various disputes and by engaging in “return fraud” wherein Defendant sought to obtain refunds from Plaintiff by shipping products to Plaintiff that Plaintiff had not sold. (Complaint, ¶¶ 1-2.) Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief.

On November 10, 2025, Plaintiff served Defendant with the subject discovery via email and mail. The email address and one of the two physical addresses listed on the proof of service were used by Defendant on filings in this matter prior to November 10, 2025. On November 11, 2025, Defendant emailed Plaintiff’s counsel objecting to the service of the discovery requests and stating that he would not respond on the basis that he had not consented to electronic service. Defendant reiterated this position over the next several days. On November 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant to serve responses. On December 7, 2025, Defendant served responses via email, and on December 11, 2025, Defendant served the same response via personal delivery on Nordstrom’s authorized agent in Sacramento.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV023298: NORDSTROM, INC. vs EMER 07/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One in Department 8C

On January 26, 2026, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses on the basis that the motion was premature given that it was filed before Defendant’s deadline to serve responses had passed, and since Defendant subsequently served responses before the deadline.

On January 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed the present motion seeking further responses to its Request for Admission Nos. 1-18 and 20-21. On May 5, 2026, Defendant filed his opposition papers, raising a slew of purported reasons why the motions should be denied, including several procedural bases. The Court addresses these threshold issues where relevant as well as the subject requests at issue below.

Discussion

Timeliness of Motion

The Court has denied Plaintiff’s motions to compel Defendant to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Form Interrogatories and First Set of Special Interrogatories on today’s calendar on the basis that the motions are untimely. However, the same issue is not present here, because even if Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s requests for admission were verified, Plaintiff’s motion is timely. Defendant served responses via email on December 7, 2025, resulting in a motion deadline of January 23, 2026 after applying an additional two days for email service. Defendant also served the responses via personal service on December 11, 2025, resulting in a motion deadline of January 26, 2026. Plaintiff filed the present motion on January 23, 2026. Thus, the motion is timely.

Defendant’s Supplemental Responses

On February 9, 2026, Defendant filed what he purports to be supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests, including the requests for admission. On February 20, 2026, Defendant filed a proof of service stating that the supplemental responses were served on February 17, 2026. Defendant’s supplemental responses do not render the present motion 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”].) This is particularly applicable to Defendant’s supplemental responses, as they assert objections not raised with the original responses. Thus, the issues raised by Plaintiff’s motion have not been rendered moot by the supplemental responses.

Defendant’s Service Argument

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV023298: NORDSTROM, INC. vs EMER 07/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One in Department 8C

Defendant argues that he was never properly served with the discovery. Not only is this argument waived by the fact that Plaintiff has served responses (and supplemental responses) to the discovery, but the Court has already dispensed with this argument in its ruling denying Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses on January 26, 2026. (See 01/26/2026 Minute Order, p. 3.) Thus, the Court finds Defendant was properly served with the discovery.

Defendant’s Estoppel Argument

Defendant argues that Plaintiff is estopped from claiming his responses are deficient because in its March 16, 2026 order denying Defendant’s motion for sanctions, the Court cited to Defendant’s response to Form Interrogatory No. 2.1(b). Even if this were a valid basis for estoppel (which it is not and for which Defendant cites no authority), Defendant does not explain how the Court’s use of an interrogatory response would affect Plaintiff’s ability to move for further responses to requests for admission. Thus, this argument is rejected.

Defendant’s Separate Statement

With his opposition papers, Defendant filed a document titled, “Defendant’s Separate Statement of Facts in Support of Opposition to Plaintiff’s Four Motions to Compel Further Responses.” The document contains a list of purported facts Defendant contends are material to the motion. It appears that Defendant has submitted his version of a separate statement of undisputed material facts as is normally found with a motion for summary judgment. This is not the type of separate statement filed in relation to discovery motions, which are governed by rule 3.1345 of the California Rules of Court. Since Defendant’s separate statement does not comply with rule 3.1345, and since the information provided in the separate statement is irrelevant to the Court’s disposition of this motion, the Court has not considered the separate statement.

Defendant’s Stay Argument

Defendant also argues that the motion should be stayed pending resolution of Defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendant previously raised this argument in relation to Plaintiff’s motions to compel initial responses, relying on the same authority cited in his opposition to the present motion. The Court previously rejected the argument, and the Court sees no reason to stray from its prior conclusion. Thus, Defendant’s stay request is denied.

Defendant’s Responses

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV023298: NORDSTROM, INC. vs EMER 07/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One in Department 8C

Upon the filing of a motion to compel further responses, the party resisting discovery has the burden to justify any objection. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.) An answer to a response to requests for admission “shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220(a).) Additionally, each answer shall either admit so much of the matter involved in the request, or as reasonably qualified by the responding party, is true, deny so much of the matter involved in the request is untrue, and specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge. (Code Civ.

Proc. § 2033.220(b).) If the responding party states that he lacks sufficient information or knowledge to admit the truth of the request, he “shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220(c).) “‘[S]ince requests for admissions are not limited to matters within personal knowledge of the responding party, that party has a duty to make a reasonable investigation of the facts before answering items which do not fall within his personal knowledge.’” (Wimberly v.

Derby Cycle Corp. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 618, 634.)

In response to each of the requests at issue, Defendant asserted that he lacked sufficient information to admit or deny. However, he failed to state that a reasonable inquiry has been made. Thus, his responses are deficient. Additionally, in response to Request Nos. 18 and 21, Defendant objected on vagueness grounds, while in response to Request No. 20, Defendant objected that the request calls for an expert opinion. Defendant has not justified his objections in response to this motion.

Disposition

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admission is GRANTED in full.

Defendant shall serve verified further responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Admission, Nos. 1-18 and 20-21, by no later than August 10, 2026, or a later date agreed to by the parties in writing.

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.)