Motions to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories; Requests for Production of Documents; Requests for Admissions
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
Here, while the parties may have had a private agreement that the court retain jurisdiction, the record does not show that the parties ever made an express request to the court to retain jurisdiction prior to the parties’ dismissing this case with prejudice.
As such, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. (See, e.g., Wackeen, 97 Cal.App.4th at 437 [“When there is a voluntary dismissal of an entire action, the court's jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter terminates.”].)
The motion is therefore DENIED.
Moving Defendants to give notice.
9 Doe vs. Brown Motions to Compel Further Responses to 1. Special Interrogatories 2. Requests for Production of Documents (RPDs) 3. Requests for Admissions (RFAs)
1. Special Interrogatories
The court DENIES in part and GRANTS in part Plaintiff JANE DOE’s motion to compel further responses from Defendant JAMAL BROWN to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One).
First, the court notes that it’s not clear which special interrogatories are at issue in Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion fails to state whether the motion is directed to any particular interrogatory or to all of the interrogatories contained in Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One). (See Not. Of Mot., filed 5/26/26 [ROA 429].) By contrast, the supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities (“MP&As”) (ROA 430) lists the following under the heading “Specific Deficiencies”: Special Interrogatories, Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 and 21. The accompanying Separate Statement (ROA 415) also lists Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 and 21. However, the accompanying Declarations
(ROAs 417 and ROA 423, Exh. B) show an effort to meet and confer as to only the following Special Interrogatories: Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, and 14.
Given such, it appears to the motion is directed at Special Interrogatories Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 and 21 and that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer as to Nos. 17, 18, 20 and 21.
Motions to compel further discovery responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2030.310(b); 2031.310(b)(2), 2033.290(b)(1).)
As such, the court DENIES the motion as to Special Interrogatories, Nos. 17, 18, 20 and 21, for failure to meet and confer as required.
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?”
As for Special Interrogatory Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10, each response appears to be complete and straightforward. As such, the motion is DENIED as to these requests.
As for Special Interrogatory Nos. 13 and 14, Defendant does not justify the objections asserted. As such, the motion is GRANTED as to Nos. 13 and 14.
2. RPDs
The court DENIES Plaintiff JANE DOE’s motion to compel further responses from Defendant JAMAL BROWN to Plaintiff’s RFPs (Set One).
Similar to the motion concerning the special interrogatories, Plaintiff’s one-paragraph Notice of Motion (the same Notice used for each of the three motions) fails to state whether the motion is directed to any particular RFP or to all of the requests contained in Plaintiff’s RFPs (Set One). (See ROA 429.) By contrast, the supporting MP&As (ROA 450) specifically lists only the following requests under the heading “Specific Deficiencies”: RFPs, Nos. 3 and 5. The MP&As also vaguely refers generally to “multiple RFPs” and “several RFPs”. (ROA 450, at p. 2, lines 21-22.) The accompanying Separate Statement (ROA 419)
however lists Nos. 1-6, 8, 9, 11, and 16-20, and the accompanying Declaration (ROA 421, Exh. A) shows an effort to meet and confer as to the following RFPs: Nos. 1- 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15-20.
Whether or not the motion is properly directed at only Nos. 3 and 5, or to Nos. 1-5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15-20, Plaintiff fails to meet her burden of establishing good cause for compelling a further response.
A motion to compel further responses to RFPs “shall” set forth “specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) To establish “good cause,” the burden is on the moving party to demonstrate both: (1) relevance to the subject matter (e.g., how the information in the documents would tend to prove or disprove some issue in the case), and (2) specific facts justifying discovery. (Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) Arguments made in the moving papers or in a separate statement are insufficient to satisfy this requirement; good cause must be shown by way of admissible evidence, such as by declaration. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)
Only if good cause is shown by the moving party does the burden shift to the responding party to justify any objections made to document disclosure. (See Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 [re interrogatories].)
Plaintiff does not show good cause justifying the production of discovery sought by the RFPs, and good cause is not apparent on the face of the RFPs.
To the extent Plaintiff requests that the court set a hearing under Civil Code section 3295(c), Plaintiff improperly requests affirmative relief for the first time on reply.
As for any request to compel compliance with an agreement to produce documents responsive to RFP Nos. 6, 8, 9, and 11, a separate motion is required. If a responding party fails to permit inspection in accordance
with its agreement to comply with an inspection demand, the demanding party’s remedy is to file a motion compelling compliance as agreed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.320.
The court further notes that Plaintiff does not submit admissible evidence to support her contention that Defendant agreed to produce documents responsive to RFP Nos. 6, 8, 9, and 11.
In sum, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to the RFPs.
3. RFAs
The court DENIES in part, and GRANTS in part, Plaintiff JANE DOE’s motion to compel further responses from Defendant JAMAL BROWN to Plaintiff’s RFAs (Set One).
Similar to the above motions, Plaintiff’s one-paragraph Notice of Motion (the same Notice used for each of the three motions) fails to state whether the motion is directed to any particular RFA or to all of the requests contained in Plaintiff’s RFAs (Set One). (See ROA 429.) By contrast, the supporting MP&As (ROA 452) specifically lists only the following requests under the heading “Specific Deficiencies”: RFAs, Nos. 1-3 and 7-16, inclusive. The accompanying Separate Statement (ROA 425) however lists Nos. 1-3, 7, 26-31, inclusive, and the accompanying Declaration (ROA 423, Exh. A) shows an effort to meet and confer as to the following RFPs: Nos. 1-3, and 7-16.
As Plaintiff’s Separate Statement does not include RFA Nos. 8-16 or responses thereto, the court DENIES the motion as to RFA Nos. 8-16.
As Plaintiff apparently did not meet and confer as to RFA Nos. 26-31, the court DENIES the motion as to those RFAs.
As to the remaining discovery responses (Nos. 1-3 and 7), the court finds Plaintiff sufficiently met and conferred and such is contained in the supporting separate statement.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220 requires that responses to RFAs be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits,” and that each response admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue, or specify so much of the matter involved as to the truth of which the Responding Party lacks sufficient information or knowledge. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220(a)-(b).) Should the responding party give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit all or part of the RFA, the party “shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220(c).)
Pursuant to section 2033.290(a), a party may move for an order compelling a further response to requests for admission if that party deems that an answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete and/or an objection to a particular request is without merit or too general.
The court finds Defendant’s responses to RFA Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 are evasive and incomplete. As such, the motion is GRANTED as to RFA Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7.
No later than 10 days from the hearing, Defendant Brown SHALL provide supplemental verified, code-compliant responses without objection to
• RFA Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7; and • Special Interrogatory Nos. 13 and 14.
Re Sanctions: In each of Plaintiff’s three MP&As (ROAs 430, 450 and 452) – but not in Plaintiff’s one Notice of Motion (ROA 429), Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions of $1,200.00 which she asserts is “at the self-represented rate commonly allowed by courts”. (P’s MP&As (ROAs 430, 450 and 452), each at p. 3.)
13