SCHNEIDER vs HARDESTY

23CV004147: SCHNEIDER vs HARDESTY 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that effective April 13, 2026, this department has moved to the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye courthouse located at 500 G Street in Sacramento, CA 95814. All hearings noticed for Department 25 will be heard in Department 8D of the new courthouse. Parties who wish to contest the tentative ruling below must: (1) request a hearing by calling the Department 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, and (2) advise opposing counsel of the request.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, the tentative ruling shall become the final order of the Court. The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Court assumes that all parties will appear remotely via Zoom unless the Court orders inperson attendance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf.

Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided

23CV004147: SCHNEIDER vs HARDESTY 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One in Department 8D

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Joseph Hardesty’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories from Plaintiff Jay Schneider (“Plaintiff”) is ruled upon as follows.

Defendant served the at issue discovery requests on April 3, 2026. (Marcroft, Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff failed to timely serve responses. (Marcroft Decl., ¶ 10.)

Defendant now moves to compel responses to form interrogatories, set one. Plaintiff has filed a response, stating that he “will have served verified responses to those requests prior to the hearing date.” (Opp., p. 1:19-20.)

Belated service of responses, however, does not render a motion to compel discovery moot. The moving party is entitled to a ruling once the motion is made. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1005.5; see also Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, at p. 407 [“[S]ection 2030.290 does not preclude the trial court from granting a motion to compel responses under subdivision (b), even if the responding party serves untimely interrogatory responses after the propounding party has served the motion.”])

As Plaintiff does not substantively oppose the motion, Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4 [A party's failure to oppose a motion is construed as a concession on the merits of the motion].)

Plaintiff shall serve verified responses without objections by no later than September 17, 2026. To the extent that such responses have already been served, Plaintiff need not re-serve them.

Because the motion is substantively unopposed, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED. Although California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a) purports to authorize sanctions if the motion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governing this discovery authorize sanctions only if the motion was unsuccessfully made or opposed. (See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h), and 2033.290(d).) Any order imposing sanctions under the California Rules of Court must conform to the conditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing sanctions.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV004147: SCHNEIDER vs HARDESTY 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One in Department 8D

(Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v. Firmaterr, Inc. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 355.) However, repeated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an abuse of the discovery process and award sanctions on that basis. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 481.)

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.