DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV1572·eldorado·Civil·Employment
Hearing 4 months agoDENIED AS MOOT

ESPINO v. HUMASON II, INC., ET AL.

Motion to Compel; Motion to Compel; Motion to Compel

Hearing date
Apr 17, 2026
Department
FOUR
Judge
Prevailing
Defendant
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffESPINO
DefendantHUMASON II, INC.

Ruling

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR APRIL 17, 2026

4. ESPINO v. HUMASON II, INC., ET AL., 25CV1572

(A) Motion to Compel

(B) Motion to Compel

(C) Motion to Compel

On August 28, 2025, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories,

and Request for Production of Documents. (Arakelyan Decl. ¶ 3.) The parties previously

agreed to several discovery extensions and were engaged in informal settlement

negotiations, which included an agreement to stay discovery. (Catalano Decl. ¶¶ 3-19.) Defendant served verified, code-compliant responses to Plaintiff’s Form

Interrogatories – Employment, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Plaintiff’s

Request for Production of Documents, Set One on April 6, 2026. (Catalano Decl. ¶ 22.)

Plaintiff’s Motions do not comply with Local Rule 7.10.05. Repeated failure to

comply with the requirements of the Local Rules may result in sanctions, pursuant to

Local Rule 7.12.13.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel failed to satisfy the requirements of

§ 2016.040(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) which requires: “A meet and confer

declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith

attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve

each issue presented by the motion.” Plaintiff sent two e-mails indicating that responses

were due but did not make any further attempts. The Court would generally require the parties to further meet and confer before hearing the Motions, but Defendant has since

served responses, so the Motions are moot.

In terms of sanctions, the Court finds that the imposition of sanctions would be

unjust, as Plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of CCP § 2016.040.

TENTATIVE RULING # 4: MOTION TO COMPEL FORM INTERROGATORIES, MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND MOTION TO COMPEL SPECIAL

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR APRIL 17, 2026

INTERROGATORIES ARE DENIED AS MOOT. NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE

HELD (LEWIS v. SUPERIOR COURT (1999) 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247), UNLESS A NOTICE OF

INTENT TO APPEAR AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED

ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY TELEPHONE TO THE COURT

AT (530) 573-3042 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED.

NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF AN INTENT TO APPEAR MUST BE MADE BY TELEPHONE OR

IN PERSON. PROOF OF SERVICE OF SAID NOTICE MUST BE FILED PRIOR TO OR AT THE

HEARING.

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