Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses and Production of Documents from Aaron Moss
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings August 11, 2026
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:
CV-25-008025 - BABYLON BUILDERS INC vs HOMEADVISOR INC - a) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents, Set One - CONTINUED to August 12, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 21 to be heard with the other motion.
b) Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Code-Compliant Further Responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions - CONTINUED to August 12, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 21 to be heard with the other motion.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
CV-26-003505 - TOVAR, MARK A vs FCA US LLC - Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Compliance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 871.26(b) - GRANTED.
This matter was continued from August 6, 2026 to August 11, 2026. Below is the tentative ruling that the Court previously posted.
Defendant filed the instant motion seeking to compel Plaintiff to provide code-compliant initial disclosures as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26, subdivisions (b), (f), and (g). Plaintiff served initial disclosures but Defendant argues that Plaintiff's initial disclosures are deficient.
"Within 60 days after the filing of the answer or other responsive pleading, all parties shall, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to all other parties an initial disclosure and documents pursuant to subdivisions (f), (g), and (h)." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 871.26(b).)
Subdivision (f) requires the plaintiff to provide documents for enumerated categories and subdivision (g) requires the plaintiff to provide information. Here, Plaintiff's responses are deficient. For example, Plaintiff is required to provide the sales or lease agreement, a copy of current registration, and certain financial information, but Plaintiff has not done so.
As another example, Plaintiff is required to provide information concerning accidents and aftermarket modifications, but Plaintiff has not provided the information and instead Plaintiff's response states that Plaintiff is searching for documents and/or information.
The motion is GRANTED. The Court intends to sign the proposed order Defendant submitted in connection with its motion.
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?”
PR-25-000725 - In the Matter of MOSS 2001 REVOCABLE TRUST - Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses and Production of Documents from Aaron Moss - DENIED.
For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED in its entirety.
Merits
The motion was directed to the adequacy of Respondent's responses to Requests for Production Nos. 16 through 23. After the motion was filed, Respondent served verified supplemental responses on July 29, 2026, and produced additional responsive documents, including a formal accounting for the Remus D. Moss Irrevocable Trust, additional bank statements, and the promissory note identified in the supplemental responses.
The supplemental responses state the results of Respondent's further diligent search and reasonable inquiry, identify the responsive documents located and produced, and state that no responsive documents are being withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege or attorney work product.
To the extent Petitioner challenges the adequacy of Respondent's privilege log with respect to documents allegedly withheld in response to other requests for production, those requests are not before the Court. The separate statement addresses only Requests for Production Nos. 16 through 23, and Respondent's supplemental responses expressly state that no documents responsive to those requests are being withheld on privilege grounds.
The Court therefore concludes that the supplemental responses have substantially addressed the deficiencies identified in the motion and that no further responses are presently required.
Request for Sanctions
The Court finds that Petitioner acted with substantial justification in bringing the motion. Significant responsive materials, including the formal accounting, additional bank statements, and the promissory note, were not produced until after the motion was filed. The motion was therefore not without merit when filed.
Nevertheless, because Respondent served verified supplemental responses and produced additional responsive documents before the hearing, and because the Court finds the supplemental responses have substantially resolved the issues raised by the motion, the Court declines to award monetary sanctions. Each side shall bear its own fees and costs associated with the motion.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23:
CV-23-002113 - THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs ALI, KAMAL - a) Petitioner's Motion to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One - GRANTED, and unopposed.
b) Petitioner's Motion to Compel Response to Request for Inspection of Documents and Tangible Things - GRANTED, and unopposed.
c) Petitioner's Motion to Compel Response to Request for Admissions - GRANTED, and unopposed.
a) The Court finds that Real Party in Interest has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2030.290(a).) Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to an order compelling Mr. Ali to provide answers, without objection, to the subject discovery within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2030.290(b).) Petitioner shall submit a revised form of proposed order consistent with the Court's ruling herein.
b) The Court finds that Real Party in Interest has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2031.300(a).) Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to an order compelling Mr. Ali to provide answers, without objection, to the subject discovery and to produce the requested documents within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2031.300(b).) Petitioner shall submit a revised form of proposed order consistent with the Court's ruling herein.
c) The Court finds that Real Party in Interest has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(a).) Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Petitioner's request. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(c); St. Mary's v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4 th 762, 777-778.). Therefore, the matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted. Petitioner shall submit a revised form of proposed order consistent with the Court's ruling herein.
CV-25-006753 - BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF THE GREATER VALLEY vs DEL PUERTO HEALTH CARE DISTRICT - Petition for Writ of Mandate - HEARING REQUIRED.
A hearing is required. The Court is inclined to GRANT the petition for writ of mandate. The Court is inclined to DENY declaratory relief.
Procedural Background
On July 11, 2025, Petitioner/Plaintiff Building Industry Association of the Greater Valley ("BIAGV") filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate ("Petition") and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ("Complaint").
On March 16, 2026, Respondents/Defendants Del Puerto Health Care District and the Board of Directors of the Del Puerto Health Care District (collectively, "DPHCD") submitted an Answer to the Petition and Complaint.
On March 18, 2026, Petitioner submitted an opening brief ("Brief").
On April 27, 2026, Respondents submitted an opposition brief ("Opposition").
On May 18, 2026, BIAGV submitted a reply brief ("Reply").
On April 30, 2026, Respondents lodged the Stipulated Record, Bates-stamped SRI-000001 -SRI-005193, and including Exhibit Nos. 1-106.
Requests for Judicial Notice
On March 18, 2026, Petitioner submitted a request for judicial notice of the following documents: Exhibit