Motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
34-2021-00300899-CU-AF-GDS: The People Of The State Of California vs. $148,843 In U.S. Currency 09/13/2023 Hearing on Motion - Other Special Interrogatories Set Two in Department 53
Tentative Ruling
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.
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
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
34-2021-00300899-CU-AF-GDS: The People Of The State Of California vs. $148,843 In U.S. Currency 09/13/2023 Hearing on Motion - Other Special Interrogatories Set Two in Department 53
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:
The People of the State of Californias (the People) motion to compel real party in interest Jessica Freehill (Freehill) to serve further responses to the Peoples second set of special interrogatories is UNOPPOSED but DENIED.
The Peoples motion is one to compel further responses to interrogatories. That is, it is not a motion to compel initial responses where the opposing party has completely failed to respond. Unlike a motion to compel based upon a complete failure to respond, a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must be accompanied by a separate statement. (CRC, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(2).) The separate statement required by California Rule of Court, rule 3.1345 must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document to ascertain the full request and the full response, and the reasons why further response should be compelled. (CRC, Rule 3.1345, subd. (c).)
Specifically, the separate statement must contain the following information: (1) the verbatim discovery request concerning which further responses are sought; (2) the verbatim response made by the responding party; (3) the reason(s) why further response should be ordered; (4) if necessary to the determination of the motion, the definitions, instructions, and other information required to under the discovery demand and response thereto; (5) if response is dependent upon a response to another demand, then that demand and response thereto must be set forth; (6) if pleadings or other documents are relevant to the motion, the party relying on them must summarize them. (CRC, Rule 3.1345, subd. (c).)
No separate statement was filed in this case. Nor have the People requested, or the court allowed, the submission of a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute in lieu of a separate statement. (CRC Rule 3.1345, subd. (b)(2); Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.300(b)(2).) The subject interrogatories are nowhere recited in the Peoples motion. Neither have the People seen fit to provide a concise outline of the discovery requests and each response in dispute. The Court is left with the Peoples meet and confer letter to Freehills counsel to deduce the discovery dispute. (See Kennedy Decl., Exh. C.)
A motion to compel is properly denied if no separate statement in full compliance with the rules accompanies the motion. (See Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893; St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 777-778.)
The Peoples motion to compel further responses is DENIED without prejudice.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rule of Court
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2021-00300899-CU-AF-GDS: The People Of The State Of California vs. $148,843 In U.S. Currency 09/13/2023 Hearing on Motion - Other Special Interrogatories Set Two in Department 53
3.1312 or further notice is required.