DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV1535·eldorado·Civil·Personal Injury
Hearing 5 months agoGRANTED

CROW, ET AL. v. CHILD

Motion to Compel

Hearing date
Mar 20, 2026
Department
Four
Judge
Prevailing
Defendant
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffJohn Crow
PlaintiffJanet Crow
DefendantBarton Memorial Hospital

Ruling

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR MARCH 20, 2026

2. CROW, ET AL. v. CHILD, 24CV1535

Motion to Compel

On January 6, 2026, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290,

defendant Barton Memorial Hospital (“defendant”) filed the instant motion to compel

(1) plaintiff John Crow’s verified response to Form Interrogatories (Set One); (2) plaintiff

John Crow’s verified response to Special Interrogatories (Set One); and (3) plaintiff Janet

Crow’s verified response to Form Interrogatories (Set One). Defendant’s motion includes

no request for a monetary sanction. Proof of service attached to the moving papers shows the motion was electronically

served upon all parties that same day. On March 13, 2026, defendant filed a notice of

non-opposition.

If a party to whom interrogatories were directed fails to serve a timely response, the

propounding party may move for an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc.,

§ 2030.290, subd. (b); see Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare

Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403–404.) Generally, the party who failed to

serve a timely response to the discovery request waives “any objection” to the request,

“including one based on privilege” or the protection of attorney work product. (Code,

Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)

In this case, defense counsel declares his office electronically served the discovery

requests on plaintiffs on September 25, 2025. (Perry Decl., ¶ 2.) Accordingly, plaintiffs’ deadline to serve their verified responses was October 27, 2025 (30 calendar days,

extended by two court days for electronic service). (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1013, subd. (e),

2030.260, subd. (a).) As of January 6, 2026, neither plaintiff had served any verified

response. (Perry Decl., ¶ 8.) Therefore, the motion is granted.

TENTATIVE RULING # 2: THE MOTION TO COMPEL IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFF JOHN CROW SHALL SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES, WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO DEFENDANT BARTON

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR MARCH 20, 2026

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) AND SPECIAL

INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) NO LATER THAN APRIL 30, 2026; AND PLAINTIFF JANET

CROW SHALL SERVE A VERIFIED RESPONSE, WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO DEFENDANT

BARTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL’S FORM INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE) NO LATER THAN

APRIL 30, 2026.

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