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 Special Interrogatories, 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 Special Interrogatories is DENIED as untimely.

A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be filed and served “within 45 days of the service of the verified response,” or by a specific later date agreed to by the parties in writing. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(c).) The 45-day time limit is mandatory, and a trial court is without jurisdiction to rule on a motion to compel further responses filed after the 45-day deadline other than to deny it. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410; Vidal Sassoon v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 685.) Failure to timely file a motion to compel further responses results in waiver of the right to compel a further response. (Saxena v. Goffney (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 316, 333; Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(c).)

Here, 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 did not file this motion until January 27, 2026. Thus, if the responses are properly verified, the motion is untimely.

Plaintiff’s current motion does not address whether Defendant’s responses were properly verified and does not attempt to establish that the motion is timely. However, Plaintiff previously

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

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

contended in its reply papers in relation to its prior motions to compel initial responses that Defendant’s responses were not properly verified for several reasons. The Court expressly declined to decide this issue in its January 26 ruling denying the motions to compel initial responses. Although Plaintiff does not raise the issue again with the present motion, the Court finds it necessary to address.

Defendant served all of his responses to Plaintiff’s written discovery requests with a single document, separated by headings for each discovery set. (See Milstead Decl., Exh. 4.) Immediately below his last response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Defendant stated, “I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.” (Milstead Decl., Exh. 4, p. 5.) Defendant then purported to sign the responses immediately below this statement by using a typewritten signature. (Milstead Decl., Exh. 4, p. 5.) However, at the end of the document containing all of his responses, Defendant inserted a heading entitled, “Verification.” (Milstead Decl., Exh. 4, p. 11.) Under this heading, Defendant stated:

I, ALEX EMER, declare:

1. I am the Defendant in the above-entitled action.

2. I have read the foregoing [Responses and Objections to Special Interrogatories/Form Interrogatories/Requests for Production/Requests for Admission].

3. The responses therein are true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

(Milstead Decl., Exh. 4, p. 11.)

The verification is signed using the same typewritten signature. (Milstead Decl., Exh. 4, p. 11.)

In its reply in relation to its motions to compel initial responses, Plaintiff first contended that Defendant’s verification was invalid because it was based on information and belief. “The party to whom interrogatories are directed shall sign the response under oath unless the response contains only objections.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.250(a).) This requirement may be satisfied by the use of an unsworn statement that complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

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

Here, Defendant’s first verification immediately below the special interrogatory responses complies with section 2015.5. However, the second verification, at the end of all of the responses, seemingly does not, since it includes a qualification that certain matters contained in the responses are made on information and belief.

“An affidavit based on ‘information and belief’ is hearsay and must be disregarded, and it is ‘unavailing for any purpose’ whatsoever.” (Star Motor Imports, Inc. v. Superior Court (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 201, 204, citations omitted.) Thus, Defendant’s comprehensive “verification” at the end of the document containing his responses to all of Plaintiff’s discovery requests has no evidentiary value and must not be considered. That leaves only the verification immediately following the special interrogatory responses, which, as noted above, complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5 and thus properly verifies Defendant’s special interrogatory responses.

Plaintiff next argued that Defendant’s typewritten signature was invalid because Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5 requires a verification to be “subscribed” by the declarant, and Plaintiff contends that “subscribed” requires a handwritten signature. Plaintiff cites People v. Pierce (1967) 66 Cal.2d 53, 59 fn. 5, which stated, “The word ‘subscribe’ is defined as follows: ‘To write (as one’s own name) underneath: sign (one’s name) to a document to sign with one’s own hand.’ (Webster’s Third New Internat.

Dict. (1961).)” The Court is not persuaded this this language from Pierce requires a handwritten (i.e., wet) signature to satisfy the requirement in section 2015.5 that the signature be “subscribed.” The Court notes that rule 2.257(b) of the California Rules of Court governs electronic signatures on documents signed under penalty of perjury, which suggests that verifications of discovery responses may be signed electronically. Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant’s typewritten signature is an invalid electronic signature.

Finally, Plaintiff argued that Defendant had conceded that his verification was invalid by offering to provide supplemental verifications in his opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel initial responses. Plaintiff did not cite any authority for this argument, and the Court is not persuaded that Defendant’s offer of supplemental verifications renders the original verifications invalid.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant’s responses were properly verified when served, and therefore Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Special Interrogatories is DENIED as untimely.

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.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

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