Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
The Court Investigator shall prepare a biennial investigator report for the next hearing date. The Clerk is directed to send notice to the parties.
In the Matter of Lonna Lee Garza Trust 26-52729
PETITION CONCERNING INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF TRUST AND FOR ORDER: (1) APPROVING NINTH, TENTH, AND ELEVENTH TRUST ACCOUNTS AND REPORTS OF TRUSTEE, AND (2) APPROVING TRUSTEE COMPENSATION
TENTATIVE RULING: The petition is GRANTED, including fees as prayed.
In The Matter of The Joan I. Amir Revocable Trust 26PR000139
PETITION
APPEARANCE REQUIRED. The parties shall attend prepared to discuss whether any opposition is anticipated, whether the parties intend to submit on verified pleadings and affidavits (see Evangelho v. Presoto (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 615, 620), whether any discovery or other pre-hearing practice is anticipated, and whether the parties are willing to participate in informal settlement discussions or other alternative dispute resolution proceedings. Should any party desire an evidentiary hearing, the parties shall be prepared to provide the Court with an estimate for the length of the hearing, and to set the hearing on the Court’s calendar. Counsel are directed to meet and confer on the foregoing issues prior to the hearing.
CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Cynthia P. Smith, Dept. A (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.
Andre Nave-Hernandez v. SRGA Resort, LP et al 25CV002138
[1] PLAINTIFF ANDRE NAVE-HERNANDEZ’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT SRGA RESORT, LP, TO FORM INTERROGATORIES EMPLOYMENT, SET ONE, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE AND SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND FOR SANCTIONS
TENTATIVE RULING: The matter is CONTINUED to August 13, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. A.
Plaintiff Andre Naves-Hernandez moves, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2030.300, subdivision (d), 2031.310, subdivision (h), 2023.030 subdivision (a) and 2023.040, for an order compelling Defendant SRGA Resort, LP, to produce further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Employment, Set One., Nos. 200.1, 200.4, 200.6, 201.4, 201.5, 201.6, 207.1, 207.2, 211.1, 211.2, 214.1, 214.2, 215.1, 215.2, 216.1, Request for Production, Set
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?”
[2] PLAINTIFF ANDRE NAVE-HERNANDEZ’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT AUBERGE RESORTS, LLC, TO FORM INTERROGATORIES EMPLOYMENT, SET ONE, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET TWO, FORM INTERROGATORIES GENERAL, SET ONE, AND FOR SANCTIONS
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant Auberge Resorts, LLC (Auberge), is ordered to serve, no later than 14 calendar days after Notice of Entry of this order, further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatory Nos. 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.7, 200.6, 207.1, 207.2, 211.1, 211.2, Special Interrogatory Nos. 1, 3-5, 12-14, 17-23, 25, and 28, and Request for Production Nos. 5-6, and 8. The Motion is DENIED in all other respects, including the request for an award of monetary sanctions. Plaintiff Andre Naves-Hernandez is directed to file and serve a Notice of Entry of the instant order.
Plaintiff Andre Naves-Hernandez moves, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2030.300, subdivision (d), 2031.310, subdivision (h), 2023.030, subdivision (a), 2023.040, and 2033.290, for an order compelling Defendant Auberge Resorts, LLC (Auberge), to provide further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories Employment, Set One, Nos. 200.1, 200.4, 200.6, 201.4, 201.5, 201.6, 207.1, 207.2, 211.1, 211.2, 214.1, 214.2, 215.1, 215.2, 216.1; Request for Production, Set One, Nos. 1-12; Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1-6; Request for Admissions, Set One, Nos. 1, 4-6, 9-18, 20-32; Special Interrogatories, Set Two, Nos. 7-29; and Form Interrogatories General, Set One, Nos. 4.1, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 17.1. Plaintiff also moves for an award of monetary sanctions against Auberge in the amount of $1,560.00.1
A. GENERAL MATTERS
Plaintiff first contends that Auberge’s initial responses to the subject discovery are improper because they include preliminary statements and general objections. (See Support Memo at 3:11-4:9.) Plaintiff correctly notes that the Civil Discovery Act requires a responding party to respond separately to each interrogatory and to each request for production. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the inclusion of preliminary statements and/or general objections renders an otherwise proper response improper. Plaintiff fails to cite to authority supporting the suggestion that the Court has authority to order a responding party to serve further responses simply because they have included, in responses, superfluous matters and/or objections.
Similarly, Plaintiff contends that Auberge “must withdraw its meritless objections” to the subject discovery. (See Support Memo at 4:10-11.) However, Auberge is entitled to assert whatever objections it feels are appropriate. The question of whether they are meritorious is for 1 All subsequent statutory references herein are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise noted.
6