Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories; Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents; Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories; Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME CITY OF LAKE MOTION LEAVE TO FILE CROSS- CVRI2102535 ELSINORE vs MITCHELL COMPLAINT Tentative Ruling:
Motion is Off Calendar.
The Defendant has filed an appeal. The Court of Appeal has issued a Palma notice directing that the proceedings be Stayed pending determination of the appeal on the merits.
Matter is set for a Status Conference on June 9, 2027, at 8:30am, D-4.
2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET CALDERON vs CITY OF TWO RESPONSE TO REQUESTS CVRI2303538 MENIFEE FOR ADMISSION, SET TWO, NO. 50 (ERRONEOUSLY NUMBERED 51) Tentative Ruling:
GRANT
The City has established an excusable mistake in its response to RFA2 No.50 and Plaintiff will not be unduly prejudiced by the amended response.
3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER LAMBERT vs BMW OF CVRI2506588 RESPONSES TO SPECIAL NORTH AMERICA, LLC INTERROGATORIES NOS. 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11 AND 13; Tentative Ruling:
GRANT as to Special Interrogatories nos. 2, 6, 9,11 and 13.
BMW’s response to no. 2 is not responsive to the call of the question. For no. 6, if the question requires reference to another document, the document should be identified and its contents summarized. In no. 9, BMW’s response is vague. Does BMW maintain there are no defects that are responsive, or does BMW maintain only there are no
defects that would “substantially impair its use, value, or safety.” The responses to nos. 9 and 13 are similarly unclear. Special Interrogatory 11 is a contention interrogatory and does not call for a legal conclusion.
DENY as to nos.3 and 4. These interrogatories are overbroad.
Further responses due within 20 days. No sanctions.
4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER LAMBERT vs BMW OF CVRI2506588 RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR NORTH AMERICA, LLC PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS NOS. 1-15 Tentative Ruling:
GRANT as to RFP’s nos. 1-10. and 14-15.
BMW’s responses are unclear as to whether BMW is complying in whole or in part, or whether any documents are being withheld. BMW needs to make the scope of its production clear, i.e., is it only for the term of the lease? For no. 6, BMW does not justify its claimed privilege-BMW must provide a privilege log identifying communications that are being withheld.
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?”
DENY as to no.
13. This request is unintelligible. It is unclear what Plaintiff is requesting here.
Further responses due within 20 days. No sanctions.
5. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S FURTHER LAMBERT vs BMW OF CVRI2506588 RESPONSES TO FORM NORTH AMERICA, LLC INTERROGATORIES NOS. 15.1 AND 17.1 Tentative Ruling:
DENY the motion as to Form Interrogatories 15.1 and 17.1. The responses to these interrogatories are sufficient. No sanctions.
6. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL LAMBERT vs BMW OF DEFENDANT’S FURTHER
NORTH AMERICA, LLC RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS NOS. 1, 2, 3, AND 4 Tentative Ruling:
GRANT the motion as to RFA’s nos.1-4.
For no. 1, Defendant cannot simply object to an RFA because it seeks a legal conclusion. (See, Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276, “When a party is served with a request for admission concerning a legal question properly raised in the pleadings he cannot object simply by asserting that the request calls for a conclusion of law. He should make the admission if he is able to do so and does not in good faith intend to contest the issue at trial...Otherwise, he should set forth in detail the reasons why he cannot truthfully admit or deny the request.”) In RFA no.2, BMW’s response is not clear or reasonable.
Stating that documents “reflect” something is not the same as BMW admitting the existence of a fact. For no. 3, Defendant again improperly objects based on legal conclusion. The request is asking for a factual admission as to the number of days the vehicle was repaired---not a legal conclusion. For RFA no. 4, relevance is not the standard for an objection to this request. Rather, the standard is; is the request reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Whether warranty repairs were performed is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Further responses due within 20 days. No sanctions.