Motion to Compel Discovery; Motion for Sanctions
(47) Tentative Ruling
Re: Felicia Mesa v. Martin Ruff Superior Court Case No. 23CECG01769
Hearing Date: August 12, 2026 (Dept. 501)
Motion: By Plaintiff Felicia Mesa for Order to compel Defendant ASM Global Fresno, LLC’s Initial Responses Form Interrogatories- General, Set One; Form Interrogatories-Employment Law, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; Requests for Production, Set One; to Deem Requests for Admission, Set One; and Request for Sanctions
Tentative Ruling:
Motion is moot. Defendant ASM Global Fresno, LLC provided responses to the discovery requests.
To grant relief to ASM Global Fresno, LLC’s request for waiver of discovery objections.
To deny the request for sanctions.
Explanation:
Plaintiff, Felicia Mesa ("Mesa" or "plaintiff") makes this motion to compel Form Interrogatories-General, Set One; Form Interrogatories-Employment Law, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; Requests for Production, Set One; and Requests for Admission, Set One, from defendant ASM Global Fresno, LLC. ("ASM" or defendant.") Plaintiff further seeks monetary sanctions against ASM and/or its counsel of record in the amount of $9,060.00. Plaintiff propounded all discovery on ASM on April 29, 2025, without response. (Mesa’ Moving Papers, pg. 4:25-28.)
At the time that the lawsuit in this matter was filed, defendant’s attorney, Steven Kroll was a partner of the law firm Bent Caryl & Kroll, LLP and his email address was skroll@bcklegal.com. On April 4, 2025, Kroll left Bent Caryl & Kroll, LLP to start his own law firm Kroll Law, P.C., with a new email address. Kroll served plaintiff’s counsel by mail with a Form MC-040, Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information, indicating among other things, his new firm name and mailing address, as well as his new email address (skroll@krollpc.com). After leaving Bent Caryl & Kroll, LLP, Kroll did not have access to his skroll@bcklegal.com email account. (Kroll Decl., ¶¶3-6, Ex. A.)
Service
Kroll argues that Mesa’s motion should be denied as ASM was never properly served. (ASM’s Opposition Papers, pp. 3:13-4:14.)
Electronic service is authorized with conditions, such as express consent or court order. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6
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?”
Here, Kroll declares he informed plaintiff’s counsel of this change of contact information through written mail (Kroll Decl., ¶5), rather than electronically informing plaintiff’s counsel. Because of Kroll’s failure to comply with Rules of Court, rule 2.251(g)(1), where Kroll, admittedly did not electronically notify plaintiff’s counsel of his change of his email address, Mesa properly served ASM, electronically.
Motions to Compel
The motion to compel is moot as ASM served complete, verified responses to the five discovery requests that are the subject of Mesa’s motion to compel responses to discovery requests. (Kroll Supplemental Decl., ¶3, Ex. B.)
Waiver of Discovery Objections
ASM requests relief from waiving objections with respect to the discovery owed. (ASM’s Opposition Papers, pg. 4:15-24.) As mentioned above, ASM served complete, verified responses to the five discovery requests that are the subject of Mesa’s motion to compel responses to discovery requests. (Kroll Supplemental Decl., ¶3, Ex. B.)
A responding party can move the court for relief from waiving objections by (1) serving responses in substantial compliance and (2) demonstrating that the failure to serve responses was the result of mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect. (Code. Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a)(1) and (2); 2031.300, subd. (a)(1) and (2).)
As mentioned above, ASM served complete, verified responses to the five discovery requests that are the subject of Mesa’s motion to compel responses to discovery requests. (Kroll Supplemental Decl., ¶3, Ex. B.) Furthermore, Kroll has demonstrated “mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect.” Kroll provided notice to plaintiff’s counsel that he was switching firms, and that his email had changed. He did not receive the requests for discovery where he no longer had access to his old email account.
Accordingly, the Court grants ASM’s request for relief from waiving any objections to the discovery requests.
Sanctions
Here, Mesa seeks sanctions in the amount of $9,060.00.
If anyone engages in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process, the Court may impose reasonable monetary sanctions, “unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the 10
imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320(b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290(d).)
Under the present the circumstances, the Court does not find that sanctions are warranted. Here, ASM’s counsel tried in good faith to give Mesa’s counsel notice of his change of electronic address, and did provide plaintiff’s counsel written notice of a change of address. Had plaintiff’s counsel opened his paper mail or attempted to reach defense counsel by telephone, this motion might have been avoided.
Accordingly, sanctions are denied.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: KCK on 08/11/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
11