SHERRILL vs APODACA, 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

26CV005044: SHERRILL vs APODACA, et al. 08/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16D

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

*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff in pro per Joseph Sherrill’s (“Sherrill”) motion to compel further responses to plaintiff’s request for production of documents and tangible things, set one, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

This dispute arises from the proposed lease and sale of Plaintiff’s commercial machine shop and equipment to Defendant Joseph Padilla (“Padilla”). In 2023 Padilla sued Sherrill in a separate lawsuit related to the same transaction, which is presently in trial. Sherrill filed the instant action in March 2026 against Padilla and several co-Defendants alleging fraudulent transfer, tortious interference with contracts and economic advantage, and conversion, among other claims.

On March 19, 2026, Sherrill served on Padilla his request for production of documents, set one, consisting of eighteen separate requests. Padilla served his responses on April 22, 2026.[1] Sherrill now moves to compel further responses to each of the eighteen requests, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280.

Padilla argues the instant motion has been mooted by additional responses served since the motion was filed. Sherrill filed this motion on May 27, 2026. Padilla served amended responses on July 17, 2026. (Brand Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV005044: SHERRILL vs APODACA, et al. 08/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16D

Belated service of responses does not render a motion to compel discovery moot. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405–406; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1348(a).) The moving party is entitled to a ruling once the motion is made. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1005.5.) The Court will proceed on the merits of Sherrill’s motion, grouping similar responses for efficiency.

Request Nos. 1, 10, 11, and 12

In response to each of these requests, Padilla referred back to discovery produced in the related lawsuit but stated that he would “supplement if additional documents are identified.” This is an insufficient response.

A party must respond separately to each request with (1) a statement that the party will comply; (2) a representation that the party lacks the ability to comply; or (3) an objection to the particular demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210.) Citation to discovery produced to the requesting party in related litigation satisfies none of the three possible responses and, in fact, appears to admit the party’s possession of discoverable materials. Padilla did not object that the requests were oppressive or burdensome. (See id., §§ 2017.020, 2031.210, subd. (d).)

Sherrill’s motion is GRANTED as to Request Nos. 1, 10, 11, and 12.

Request No. 2

Request No. 2 demanded “Provide all WRITTEN agreements and contracts (including electronically stored) between YOU and Gerald Apodaca Jr.” Padilla responded that “Responding Party refers to a draft agreement being produced. After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party is not aware of any executed written agreements.”

This response appears to state that Padilla will produce potentially responsive documents. Sherrill argues that Padilla must detail his search efforts and that the diligent search must be verified. Padilla did affirm a diligent search in his response and the response is verified. (See Sherrill Decl., Exh. C.) This is sufficient. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.)

Sherrill’s motion is DENIED as to Request No.

2.

Request Nos. 3–6 and 18

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV005044: SHERRILL vs APODACA, et al. 08/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16D

To each of these requests, Padilla responded “After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party is not aware of any responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control.”

When a party represents that it cannot comply with a demand for production, the party must “also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.) Padilla’s responses are deficient in this regard.

Sherrill’s motion is GRANTED as to Request Nos. 3–6 and 18.

Request Nos. 7, 13, and 14

To each of these requests, Padilla responded that he would produce documents in his possession. This is an adequate response.

Sherrill appears to argue that the response is deficient because no documents were produced at the time of the response. But that is precisely what the Civil Discovery Act envisions: first a written response to requests, then production. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).) The instant motion is not one to compel production under Section 2031.320 but for further response under Section 2031.310.

Sherill’s motion is DENIED as to Request Nos. 7, 13, and 14.

Request Nos. 8, 15, and 17

To each of these requests, Padilla responded “After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Responding Party is not presently in possession of any responsive documents.”

This response appears to admit that Padilla is aware responsive documents exist. When a party represents that it cannot comply with a demand for production, the party must also “set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.230.) These responses are also not code-compliant in the same way as the responses to Request Nos. 3–6 and 18.

Sherrill’s motion is GRANTED as to Request Nos. 8, 15, and 17.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV005044: SHERRILL vs APODACA, et al. 08/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16D

Request Nos. 9 and 16

To each of these requests, Padilla responded “Responding Party is not presently in possession of responsive documents. If such documents are obtained, Responding Party will produce them.”

These responses are deficient for the same reasons stated for Request Nos. 3–6 and 18 and Request Nos. 8, 15, and 17.

Sherrill’s motion is GRANTED as to Request Nos. 9 and 16.

Disposition

Sherrill’s motion for further responses is GRANTED as to Request Nos. 1, 3–6, 9–12, and 15–18. Sherrill’s motion for further responses is DENIED as to Request Nos. 2, 7, 13, and 14. To the extent Padilla has not already done so, Padilla shall serve complete, code-compliant, verified further responses by no later than September 8, 2026.

Given the mixed result, Sherrill’s motion for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Sherrill’s request for judicial notice (see Mot. at p. 4:9–11) is DENIED. A request for judicial notice must be submitted as a separate document. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.113(l).) Further, the behavior of the parties in a separate litigation has little or no relevance for this motion.

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.)

[1] Sherrill declares that he did not receive the responses until April 28 and that they

were therefore untimely. However, the Proof of Service attached to Padilla’s response attests to service on April 22, 2026. (See Sherrill Decl., Exh. C.) The service date, not receipt, determines a timely response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260 [responding party must serve response within 30 days].)