Motion to compel further responses to requests for production; Motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. The court, therefore, will grant Plaintiff’s request for $860 in sanctions.
Moving party to give notice. 2
3 Douglas vs. Plaintiff Christopher Ryan Douglas moves to compel Regents of the Defendant The Regents of the University of California (“Regents”) to University of provide further responses to Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents California (set one) and Defendants Julius Edson and Daniela Bota to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s special interrogatories (set one). For the following reasons, the motions are CONTINUED to October 29, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. in Department C10.
The Court also CONTINUES the motions to compel set for August 20, 2026, to October 29, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. in Department C10.
Plaintiff served the special interrogatories (set one) on Defendant Edson on January 17, 2026. (Douglas Dec., ¶ 8.) On February 17, 2026, Edson served responses. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Plaintiff served the special interrogatories (set one) on Defendant on January 13, 2026. (Douglas Dec., ¶ 7.) On February 17, 2026, Defendants served responses. (Id. at ¶ 10.)
Defendant Regents filed a demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), which is set for hearing on September 3, 2026. (ROA 285.) Defendant Regents also filed a motion to stay discovery, which is set for hearing on February 25, 2027. (ROA 347.)
Defendant Navigate Biopharma Services, Inc. filed a demurrer to the SAC, which is set for hearing on September 17, 2026. (ROA 220.)
And Defendant Apple Inc. filed a demurrer to the SAC, which is also set for hearing on September 17, 2026. (ROA 215.) Defendant Apple also filed a motion to stay discovery, which is set for hearing on October 15, 2026. (ROA 233.)
Plaintiff’s SAC is large. Excluding its exhibits, it contains 264 paragraphs spanning 84 pages. The exhibits add another 433 pages. (ROA 121.)
And Plaintiff’s separate statements do not comply with California Rules of Court Rule 3.1345. Pursuant to Rule 3.1345(c):
A separate statement is a separate document filed and served with the discovery motion that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue. The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response. Material must not be incorporated into the separate statement by reference. The separate statement must include-for each discovery request (e.g.,
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?”
each interrogatory, request for admission, deposition question, or inspection demand) to which a further response, answer, or production is requested-the following:
(1) The text of the request, interrogatory, question, or inspection demand;
(2) The text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers;
(3) A statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute;
(4) If necessary, the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request and the responses to it;
(5) If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request, or if the reasons a further response to a particular discovery request is deemed necessary are based on the response to some other discovery request, the other request and the response to it must be set forth; and
(6) If the pleadings, other documents in the file, or other items of discovery are relevant to the motion, the party relying on them must summarize each relevant document.
Plaintiff filed two separate statements – one related to the special interrogatories (to multiple defendants), and one related to the inspection demands (to Defendant Regents). (ROAs 161, 165.)
Plaintiff’s separate statements do not comply with Rule 3.1345. Plaintiff did not file a separate statement as to each Defendant and he did not clearly set forth each special interrogatory separately as required by Rule 3.1345.
Plaintiff should file an amended separate statement setting forth the text of each discovery request in numerical order, followed by each response. As it stands now, however, it is extremely difficult to determine how each Defendant responded to each discovery request and whether such responses are appropriate given the procedural posture of this case.
If Plaintiff intended to include Defendant Regents in the separate statement, Plaintiff shall do so.
Given that Defendants’ pleading challenges will be heard by September 2026 and Defendant Apple has a motion for stay set for October 15, 2026, the Court hereby 1. continues the hearing on these motions to October 29, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Department C10, 4
2. continues the hearing on the motions to compel set for August 20, 2026 to October 29, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Department C10, and 3. advances Defendant Regents’ motion to stay, which is currently set for hearing on February 25, 2027. (ROA 347.) That February 25, 2027 hearing date on Defendant Regents’ motion to stay is advanced to October 15, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Department C10 to be heard concurrently with Defendant Apple’s motion to stay.
No further briefing shall be permitted on the motions to compel, except that Plaintiff shall file amended separate statements consistent with the above discussion, and Defendants may file separate statements in response thereto.
Plaintiff shall file and serve notice of this ruling. 4 Adjemian vs. Gallo Plaintiff Kevork Adjemian’s motion for protective order is GRANTED.
The court awards Plaintiff sanctions against Defendant Rafael Gallo in the amount of $612.50. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.080, subd. (d)).
Authority
A protective order may be obtained if the relief is sought “promptly”. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.080(a) [protective order for requests for admissions]).
The burden is on the moving party to establish “good cause” for whatever order is sought. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255 (interrogatories); Stadish v. Super. Ct. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1145 (document requests).) “Good cause” requires specific facts demonstrating unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense. (Goodman v. Citizens Life & Cas. Ins. Co. (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 807, 819).
Merits
Plaintiff moves for an order excusing him from responding to Defendant Gallo’s fourth set of requests for admissions.
Plaintiff sets forth the following in support of his contention that good cause requires this order:
This case is based on the sale of certain real property by defendant Rafael Gallo to plaintiff Kevork Adjemian. As is alleged in the complaint, Adjemian purchased the property and, after doing so and taking possession discovered water intrusion below the exterior decks of the home and into the interior living space. Adjemian learned that Gallo had replaced the decks without permits and without the necessary waterproofing. Adjemian contends that these facts should have been disclosed to him but were not.
5