Motion to compel further responses to request for admission, set one
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
34-2021-00311585-CU-BC-GDS: Madrone Homeowners Association vs. Stephanie Stapleton 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Admissions Set One in Department 8C
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.
Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:
(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-8380, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail 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 they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and
(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.
If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.
If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.
The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:
https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174
SIP Address:
34-2021-00311585-CU-BC-GDS: Madrone Homeowners Association vs. Stephanie Stapleton 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Admissions Set One in Department 8C
16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com
(833) 568-8864
ID: 16039062174
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to
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?”
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 be forward the form to the Court Reporters 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
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2021-00311585-CU-BC-GDS: Madrone Homeowners Association vs. Stephanie Stapleton 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Admissions Set One in Department 8C
THIS NEW LOCATION***
Cross-Complainant Stephanie Stapletons (Stapleton) motion to compel further responses to request for admission, set one, against Cross-Defendant 37 Construction Specialists Inc. (Construction 37) is ruled upon as follows.
Stapleton propounded request for admission, set one, to Construction 37 on March 12, 2026. (Laino Decl., ¶ 14, Ex. L.)
On April 21, 2026, Construction 37 served responses to RFA, Set One. (Laino Decl., ¶ 16, Ex. O.) Construction 37, however, refused to respond to RFA Nos. 24-35 based solely on a relevance objection. (Id.)
Stapleton asserts that it made extensive meet and confer efforts to attempt to resolve discovery issues without court intervention, and refers the Court to email exchanges between counsel. However, Stapleton does not support its motion to compel further responses with any evidence showing an attempt to meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference. (Laino Decl., ¶¶ 21-24.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040 provides, A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by video conference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 2016.040 (emphasis added). Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference.
The Court also concludes that Stapleton failed to meet and confer in good faith prior to the filing of this motion pursuant to the requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040.
As a result, Stapletons motion is DENIED.
The parties requests for sanctions are each DENIED.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2021-00311585-CU-BC-GDS: Madrone Homeowners Association vs. Stephanie Stapleton 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Admissions Set One in Department 8C
3.1312 or further notice is required.