CAMPOS vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AS TO ROTOLO CHEVROLET INC; MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AS TO ROTOLO CHEVROLET INC; MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORY SET ONE
Motion type
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
Parties
Ruling
3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL THOMAS vs SOUTHERN COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION CALIFORNIA SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF CVRI2505429 PERMANENTE BUSINESS RECORDS SERVED MEDICAL GROUP UPON UNICARE SURGERY CENTER Tentative Ruling:
The motion is unopposed, but there is no proof of service of the motion and accompanying documents on Unicare. The hearing is continued to September 30, 2026, at 8:30 a.m., to allow an opportunity for the proof of service to be filed.
4. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AS TO ROTOLO CHEVROLET INC DEFENDANT ROTOLO CHEVROLET’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER CAMPOS vs GENERAL CVRI2600583 RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR MOTORS LLC PRODUCTION AS TO ROTOLO CHEVROLET INC DEFENDANT ROTOLO CHEVROLET’S FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORY SET ONE Tentative Ruling:
A party may file a motion compelling further answers to interrogatories and requests for production if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, or an
objection in the response is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, 2031.310.) Unless notice of the motion is given within 45 days of the service of the response, or any supplemental response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing, the propounding party waives any right to compel a further response. (Id. at §§ 2030.300(c), 2031.310(c).) Failure to comply with the discovery deadline “is only ‘jurisdictional’ in the sense that it renders the court without authority to rule on motions to compel other than to deny them.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Defendant electronically served responses on 4/28/26. The deadline was 6/16/26; Plaintiff did not file the motions until 7/30/26.
All three motions are thus denied as untimely.
Cited authorities
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Ask about this ruling
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”