DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23CV006784·sacramento·Civil·Discovery Dispute
Hearing about 1 year agoDROPPED

HAMMLER vs ALLISON, et al.

Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Production of Documents

Hearing date
Jun 11, 2025
Department
54
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffAllen Hammler
DefendantMcGhee-Corter
DefendantN. Fah
DefendantALLISON

Ruling

23CV006784: HAMMLER vs ALLISON, et al. 06/11/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories and Production of Documents in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Tentative Ruling: This matter was continued to June 11, 2025, pursuant to the Court's procedure in matters involving self-represented incarcerated litigants. The original tentative ruling is republished below. The Litigation Coordinator shall make Plaintiff Allen Hammler available, by Zoom or telephonically, at 9:00 a.m. on June 11, 2025. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom ID: 16039062174. Plaintiff in pro per Allen Hammler’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel further responses to Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories to Defendant McGhee-Corter and second set of requests for production of documents to Defendant N.

Fah is DROPPED. Plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 2.31(E), which provides, “When simultaneously filing multiple discovery-related motions in the same case with the same hearing date, each motion shall be filed as a separate document and a separate filing fee paid for each. Parties may not combine motions pertaining to different types of discovery within the same document. Failure to comply with any part of this rule regarding discovery motions may, in the discretion of the court, be grounds for the motions being dropped without consideration.” (Local Rule 2.31(E).)

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

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

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?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share