Gonzales v. EBS Foods, LLC

ground that it was improperly combined with a separate motion directed to requests for admission. Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to Requests for Admission Nos. 1-2, 4-37, 39, and 41-42 is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses and production as to Requests for Production Nos. 19, 27, and 71-73 is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve further verified, code-compliant responses and produce documents as set forth above within thirty (30) days of this order. The request for sanctions is DENIED. Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit on the tentative, and copying all parties in the email communication. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court will adopt the tentative as the final order, or take the matter off calendar at its discretion.

Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories General, Set One (CRS #3970), is DENIED as MOOT. Defendant's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions (CRS #2968) filed by Defendant EBS Foods, LLC is DENIED as MOOT with respect to to the requests to deem admissions admitted. The requests for Sanctions are DENIED for lack of proper notice.

ANALYSIS

Introduction

Defendant filed Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions (CRS #2968), Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Special Interrogatories Set one (CRS #2338), Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories - Employment Set One (CRS #0139), Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One (CRS #6318), on October 2, 2025. Plaintiff failed to serve responses to this discovery until August 2026. The parties agree that the requests for responses are mooted by Plaintiff's service of responses. Only sanctions remain at issue.

Legal Standard

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 2023.040 (West) specifies the procedural requirements for requests for discovery sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act, including notice requirements and supporting documentation. The statute provides: "A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought."

The statute's use of the mandatory word "shall" and the specific phrase "in the notice of motion" leaves no ambiguity: the identification of the sanctioned parties and the type of sanction must appear in the notice of motion itself. This requirement is not satisfied by including the sanctions request only in the memorandum of points and authorities, a supporting declaration, or elsewhere in the motion papers. California courts have strictly enforced the notice-of-motion requirement, treating deficient notices as grounds for reversing or voiding sanctions orders. (See Sole Energy Co. v.

Hodges, (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 199 [holding that a terminating sanction was void for failure to provide adequate notice]; In re Marriage of Fuller, (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 1070 (the Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate after sanctions were imposed against an attorney who had no notice that sanctions would be sought against him individually.)

Here, Defendant's Notices filed in support of the motions do not indicate who the sanctions are sought against. The Code directs that this information "shall" be included in the Notice. While the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff's dilatory conduct is unreasonable, and her failure to comply with basic discovery obligations for nearly one year is sanctionable, the Court must follow the letter of the law requiring proper notice. Discovery sanctions must be DENIED for lack of proper notice.

Conclusion

Motion to Compel Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories General, Set One (CRS #3970), is DENIED as MOOT. Defendant's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions (CRS #2968) filed by Defendant EBS Foods, LLC is DENIED as MOOT with respect to to the requests to deem admissions admitted. The requests for discovery sanctions are DENIED for lack of proper notice. Plaintiff to give notice and proof of service of notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit on the tentative, and copying all parties in the email communication. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court will adopt the tentative as the final order, or take the matter off calendar at its discretion

Case Number: 25STCV16799 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: 224 Raab v. PACE/Stauber LLC et al., TENTATIVE RULING

The Motion to Compel Compliance is GRANTED. S R Pace shall produce all documents responsive to RFP Nos. 1-8, 11, 12, 14, and 17 that are within its possession, custody, or control, in complete and unabridged form, in the form specified in the demand within 30 days. As to any responsive document it cannot produce, the response shall comply with section 2031.230 and shall state whether the document never existed, has been destroyed, lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been in S R Pace's possession, custody, or control, and shall identify any person believed to have it. Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $4,105. Defendant's request for sanctions is DENIED.

Motion to Compel Compliance

Plaintiff moves the Court for an order compelling Defendant S R Pace, LLC to comply with the statements of compliance in its responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1-8, 11, 12, 14, and 17, by producing within 14 days complete copies of all documents previously produced as SRP000007-87 and SRP000088-135, together with all other responsive electronically stored information it represented it was producing, in native format with metadata intact or, alternatively, in TIFF format with an accompanying DAT load file containing the metadata fields specified in the demand, on the grounds that S R Pace produced only facially incomplete fragments of the identified emails, produced no metadata in either specified form despite never having objected to the specified forms or stated an alternative form in three rounds of verified responses, and has not shown that it searched sources within its possession, custody, or control.

Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiff Mel Raab submits objections to portions of the Declarations of Beryl Weiner and Phyllis Miller filed in support of S R Pace, LLC's Opposition. The objections are OVERRULED.