MAYU IZUMIDA ET AL VS. GAETANI REAL ESTATE ET AL

Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Friday, March 27, 2026, Line 1.

2 - Plaintiffs Mayu Izumida and Joshua Stoll's unopposed motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Special Interrogatires, Set One; and Request for Production, Set One is DENIED. The court cannot determine on this record whether the discovery requests at issue appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, since Plaintiffs have not included the requests with their moving papers. (See Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010.)

Defendant has not established that they have provided any responses to the discovery requests at issue. No meet and confer requirement exists for motions to compel responses for Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, or Requests for Production when no responses have been provided. (CCP 2030.290, 2031.300.) The court declines to impose sanctions.

The parties are advised stacked motions are disfavored and, most often, improper. Parties generally may not stack separate motions into a single filing; instead, each distinct motion should typically be presented in a separate, properly captioned document. (See Weil & Brown et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2024) 9:24.3.) ["Each motion or demurrer should normally be set forth in a separate document."].) This rule applies equally to discovery motions. This means generally a separate motion per discovery vehicle addressed to a particular individual.

Distinct motions preserve clarity for both opposing parties and the court. Distinct motions, as well, allow the court to manage its resources (e.g., staggering or deferring motions), which is a compelling interest in oversubscribed courts such as this one. Yes, sometimes a stacked motion is appropriate because the issues are closely related, and clarity is preserved. But counsel and parties must use reasonable judgment, recognizing stacked motions are the exception, not the rule. Going forward, improperly stacked motions will be taken off calendar.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.