Syal v. My 6 Angeles, Inc., et al.

are ordered to give notice.

18, 2026 JUDGE /DEPT: Mkrtchyan/512 CASE NAME: Syal v. My 6 Angeles, Inc., et al. COMP. FILED: 11-12-24 CASE NUMBER: 24STCV29622 NOTICE: OK PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Ashwin Syal RESP. PARTY: Defendants My 6 Angeles, Inc. and Alfredo Reyes MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (CCP Sec.Sec. 2030.300, 2031.310, 2033.290) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Ashwin Syal's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Discovery Set Three is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

The Motion is DENIED as to the RFAs. The Motion is DENIED as to the following requests: As to Reyes, SROGs Nos. 1, 4, 6, and 17, and RPDs Nos. 5-6, 10-12, and 16. As to My 6 Angeles, SROGs No. 10, and RPDs Nos. 7-11, 14, and 21.

The Motion is GRANTED as to the following requests: As to Reyes, SROGs, Set Three, Nos. 2-3, 5, 7-16, and 18; and RPDs, Set Three, Nos. 1-4, 7-9, and 13-15. As to My 6 Angeles, SROGSs Nos., 1-9, 14, 19-21; and RPDs Nos., 1-6, 12-13, 15-16, 18-19, and 22.

Defendants are to provide verified further responses to the specified requests within 30 days of this order. Moving party is to give notice of ruling. SERVICE: [X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK [X] Correct Address (CCP Sec.Sec. 1013, 1013a) OK [X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP Sec.Sec. 12c, 1005(b)) OK OPPOSITION: Filed on July 8, 2026 [] Late [] None

REPLY: Filed on July 13, 2026 [] Late [] None ANALYSIS: I.

Background

On November 12, 2024, Plaintiff Ashwin Syal ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed the instant action against Defendants My 6 Angeles, Inc. and Alfredo Reyes and Does 1-100, alleging causes of action for Conversion, Fraud and Deceit, and Unjust Enrichment. (Compl.)

On December 24, 2024, Defendants filed an Answer.

On June 18, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Discovery Set Three (the "Motion").

On July 8, 2026, Defendants filed an Opposition.

On July 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Reply.

On July 17, 2026, the Court continued the hearing on the Motion.

On August 4, 2026, the parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference ("IDC"). (8/4/26 Order.) At the IDC, the parties "report they that they [had] a mediation scheduled for 8/11/2026. The Court order[ed] the parties to have a telephonic conference by 8/6/2026 to discuss the discovery requested. The parties [were also ordered] to have a second telephonic conference by 8/10/2026." (8/4/26 Order.)

The parties also orally stipulated to continue the hearing on the Motion from August 7, 2026, to August 18, 2026. (8/4/26 Order.)

II. Procedural Issues

As an initial matter, Plaintiff's Motion improperly combines five motions into one: (1) the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission ("RFAs"), (2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories ("SROGs") as to both Defendants, and (3) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production ("RPDs") as to both Defendants. In the future, Plaintiff is ordered to obtain separate hearing reservations. Combining five motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants. However, the Court will address all five motions in the interests of justice.

Next, the parties appear to concede that the meet and confer declaration accompanying the Motion is deficient as the parties only discussed the RFAs by statutorily-compliant meet and confer and not all the discovery requests at issue in the Motion. (See Motion, Syal Decl., P.P. 8, 10; Opp., p. 3.) However, the parties participated in an IDC on August 4, 2026, regarding the discovery disputes at issue in the Motion. (8/4/26 Order.)

III. Legal Standard and Discussion

Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to the following discovery requests: as to Reyes, RFAs, Set Three, Nos. 1, 5, 10-11, 13, 18-21, 23-25, 44; SROGs, Set Three, Nos. 1-18; and RPDs, Set Three, Nos. 1-16; as to My 6 Angeles, SROGSs Nos., 1-10, 14, 19-21; and RPDs Nos., 1-16, 18-19, and 21-22. (Motion, Sep. Statement.)

In Opposition, Defendants state the requests are too vague and ambiguous to warrant verified responses. (Opp., pp. 3-4.) Further, Defendants state that the "Motion reflects a pattern of AI-Generated discovery abuse" as the "requests are repetitive of earlier discovery sets, contain undefined terms and ambiguous phrasing, sweep broadly without reasonable limitation, and fail to demonstrate the tailoring and good-faith effort that California law requires." (Opp., pp. 4-5.) Finally, the Opposition also contended the meet and confer efforts prior to filing the Motion were deficient and requested the Motion be denied to allow the parties to participate in an IDC. (Opp., pp. 3, 5.)

In Reply, Plaintiff contends the Opposition mischaracterizes the meet and confer efforts in this case; Defendants failed to provide supplemental verified RFAs despite their representation that they would do so; and Defendants failed to defend the actual discovery responses or rebut the Separate Statement filed in support of the Motion. (Reply, pp. 3-5.) To the extent Defendants state certain requests are vague, Plaintiff disputes any ambiguity and, in any event, argues that "[a]ny remaining uncertainty permits a qualified answer; it does not justify complete nonresponse." (Reply, pp. 6-7.)

Here, the Court finds Defendants' responses to the subject discovery are all unverified objections. Thus, the Motion is timely. However, the Court notes Plaintiff fails to provide copies to the Court of the original subject discovery requests served on Defendants. (See Motion, Exh. List; Reply.) The Court acknowledges the subject discovery requests are alleged in the Separate Statement accompanying the Motion. (Motion, Sep. Statement.) However, the lack of original copies of the subject discovery requests may impact the Court's ability to issue orders regarding the subject discovery requests.

Upon review of Plaintiff's requests and Defendants' responses, the Court finds the responses to all the subject discovery are unverified and constitute boilerplate objections. However, the Court finds the parties do not dispute that Plaintiff has propounded at least 35 RFAs upon Reyes prior to the subject RFAs, and there is no previous court order permitting additional RFAs to be propounded against Reyes. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.030.) The Court acknowledges there is a declaration for additional discovery filed with the additional discovery. However, given the circumstances, the Court finds Reyes' objections to the subject RFAs are well-founded. Thus, the Motion's request to compel Reyes' further responses to the RFAs is DENIED.

As to the SROGs and RPDs propounded on both Defendants, the Court finds Defendants fail to provide a specific ground for each objection and/or to provide a response to the extent possible if only part of the discovery responses is objectionable. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 2030.220, subd. (a)-(c); 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240.) However, given that the Court does not have a copy of the subject SROGs and RPDs propounded on Defendants, inclusive of definitions for terms used in the discovery requests, the Court finds the SROGs and RPDs referring to "Truck #1" and "Truck #2" are ambiguous and vague and thus the objections to these requests are proper - namely, the Court refers to SROGs Nos. 1, 4, 6, and 17 as to Reyes, and RPDs Nos. 5-6, 10-12, and 16 as to Reyes; and SROGs No. 10, as to My 6 Angeles, and RPDs Nos. 7-11, 14, and 21 as to My 6 Angeles.

Thus, the Motion is DENIED as to SROGs Nos. 1, 4, 6, and 17 as to Reyes, and RPDs Nos. 5-6, 10-12, and 16 as to Reyes; and SROGs No. 10, as to My 6 Angeles, and RPDs Nos. 7-11, 14, and 21 as to My 6 Angeles. The Motion is GRANTED as to the remaining subject SROGSs and RPDS. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec.Sec. 2030.220, subd. (a)-(c); 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240.)

For these reasons, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Motion is DENIED as to the RFAs. The Motion is DENIED as to the following requests: as to Reyes, SROGs Nos. 1, 4, 6, and 17, and RPDs Nos. 5-6, 10-12, and 16; as to My 6 Angeles, SROGs No. 10, and RPDs Nos. 7-11, 14, and 21. The Motion is GRANTED as to the following requests: as to Reyes, SROGs, Set Three, Nos. 2-3, 5, 7-16, and 18; and RPDs, Set Three, Nos. 1-4, 7-9, and 13-15; as to My 6 Angeles, SROGSs Nos., 1-9, 14, 19-21; and RPDs Nos., 1-6, 12-13, 15-16, 18-19, and 22.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Ashwin Syal's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Discovery Set Three is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Motion is DENIED as to the RFAs. The Motion is DENIED as to the following requests: As to Reyes, SROGs Nos. 1, 4, 6, and 17, and RPDs Nos. 5-6, 10-12, and 16. As to My 6 Angeles, SROGs No. 10, and RPDs Nos. 7-11, 14, and 21.

The Motion is GRANTED as to the following requests: As to Reyes, SROGs, Set Three, Nos. 2-3, 5, 7-16, and 18; and RPDs, Set Three, Nos. 1-4, 7-9, and 13-15. As to My 6 Angeles, SROGSs Nos., 1-9, 14, 19-21; and RPDs Nos., 1-6, 12-13, 15-16, 18-19, and 22. Defendants are to provide verified further responses to the specified requests within 30 days of this order. Moving party is to give notice of ruling.

Case Number: 26STCV06397 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: 512 Case No. | 26STCV06397 | Case Name: | Brot Gross Fishbein LLP v. Taverniti | Hearing Date: | August 18, 2026 | | Defaulting defendant(s) | BENJAMIN MARTIN ANTOINE TAVERNITI | TENTATIVE RULING:

On February 26, 2026, Plaintiff Brot Gross Fishbein LLP ("Plaintiff") filed the instant action against Defendant Benjamin Martin Antoine Taverniti ("Defendant") and Does 1-10, alleging causes of action for Breach of Written Contract, Indebitatus Assumpsit, Account Stated, Open Book Account, and Quantum Meruit. (Compl.)

On April 17, 2026, Plaintiff filed Proof of Service demonstrating the Summons and Complaint was served on Defendant by substituted service.

On July 14, 2026, default was entered against Defendant.

On August 4, 2026, Does 1-10 were dismissed.