DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25-01451322·orange·Civil·Discovery Dispute
Hearing in about 7 hoursGRANTED

Yasuda v. Pacific Life Insurance Company

Motion to compel further responses; Motion for monetary sanctions

Hearing date
Aug 20, 2026
Department
W15
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$4,329.00$2,500.00

Parties

PlaintiffGary Yasuda
DefendantPacific Life Insurance Company

Attorneys

Stephen Shuman(Engstrom Lipscolm & Lack, LLC)for Plaintiff
Walter Lack(Engstrom Lipscolm & Lack, LLC)for Plaintiff

Ruling

in the litigation. (Associated Brewers Distributing Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 588.)

Once good cause is shown, the burden shifts to the objecting party, to justify his objections. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

Here, Defendant has shown good cause for the requested discovery because each request for production seeks documents and things supporting allegations set forth in the Complaint.

Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of justifying the objections, as Plaintiff did not address his objections at all.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED as to requests Nos. 34, 71, 72, 73. Plaintiff shall produce further verified responses as well as the applicable production within 20 days.

Plaintiff Gary Yasuda and his counsel, Stephen Shuman, Walter Lack, and Engstrom Lipscolm & Lack, LLC, are ORDERED, jointly and severally, to pay sanctions in the reduced amount of $2,500.00 (5 hrs at $500/hr). (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (h).) Sanctions are to be paid within 30 days to Defendant’s counsel.

Defendant to give notice.

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