Sandro Splendore v. Bruce Brockett

"The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct...If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." (Id., Sec. 2023.030(a).)

Misuse of the discovery process includes "[p]ersisting, over objection and without substantial justification, in an attempt to obtain information or materials that are outside the scope of permissible discovery." (Id., Sec. 2023.010(a).) Plaintiff requests $2,560.00 in discovery sanctions comprising 3 hours to prepare the Motion, 1 hour to prepare the Reply, and 1 hour to attend the hearing, plus a $60.00 filing fee. (See Berkley Decl., P.P. 7, 9-10.) Plaintiff's counsel's hourly rate is $500.00.

Defendant contends there is substantial justification for its position regarding the subpoena such that the Court may decline Plaintiff's request for sanctions. Although the Court has granted the motion and disagrees with Defendant's position, the Court finds Defendant was substantially justified in opposing the motion. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff's request for sanctions. VI. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Quash. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 19, 2026 Hon.

Michael R. Amerian Judge, Superior Court | [1] All statutory references are to California codes unless stated otherwise. [2] "'Consumer' means any individual, partnership of five or fewer persons, association, or trust which has transacted business with, or has used the services of, the witness or for whom the witness has acted as agent or fiduciary." (Id., Sec. 1985.3(a)(2).)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHWEST DISTRICT SANDRO SPLENDORE, Plaintiff,

vs. BRUCE BROCKETT, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE BROCKETT TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 29, 2024; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Defendants. |))))))))))))))))) | CASE NO.: 25VECV03329 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DEEM ADMITTED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE | BRUCE BROCKETT, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE BROCKETT TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 29, 2024, Cross-Complainant, vs. SANDRO SPLENDORE. Cross-Defendant. |)))

)))))))))))) | | I. BACKGROUND This is a property dispute action. Defendant and Cross-Complainant Bruce Brockett, individually and as trustee of the Brockett Trust dated February 29, 2024, (jointly "Brockett") alleges he owns a portion of the property located at 31041 Lobo Canyon Road, Agoura Hills, California 91301 (the "Property") by adverse possession. (See First Amended Cross-Complaint ("FAXC"), P.P. 3, 9.) Brockett alleges Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Sandro Splendore ("Splendore") resides at the Property. (See FAXC, P. 2.)

Splendore now moves to compel Brockett's responses to his Requests for Production (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Form Interrogatories (Set One). Splendore also moves to deem admitted his Requests for Admission (Set One). II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On April 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Complaint On June 15, 2025, Splendore filed a Complaint alleging (1) Trespass and Injunctive Relief; (2) Negligence; (3) Quiet Title; (4) Ejectment; and (5) Declaratory Relief. On August 28, 2025, Brockett filed an Answer.

On September 2, 2025, Brockett filed a Cross-Complaint. On December 11, 2025, Brockett filed his FAXC alleging (1) Quiet Title (Adverse Possession); (2) Declaratory Relief; and (3) Alternative Claim for Prescriptive Easement. On April 1,

2026, the Court overruled Splendore's Demurrer as to the First Cause of Action for Quiet Title and Third Cause of Action for Prescriptive Easement. but sustained it without leave to amend as to the Second Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief. On April 17, 2026, Splendore filed an Answer as to the remaining causes of action in the FAXC. On June 26, 2026, Splendore filed the instant discovery Motions. On August 14, 2026, Brockett's counsel filed a declaration responding to the Motions. As of August 14, 2026, no reply has been filed.

III. LEGAL STANDARD A. Requests for Production A party upon whom a demand for the production of documents has been made has 30 days after service of the demand to respond. (See Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2031.260(a).) [1] The propounding and responding parties may agree to extend the time for response. (See Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2031.270(a).) When a party fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party's remedy is to seek a motion to compel response. (See Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2031.300(b).) A responding party that does not provide responses waives the right to object to the demand, including objections based on privilege or work product. (See Code Civ.

Proc. Sec. 2031.300(a).) ¿ B. Interrogatories If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (See Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2030.290(b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (See Leach v.

Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.) C. Requests for Admission "Any party may obtain discovery . . . by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact. A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties." (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.010.) "Within 30 days after service of requests for admission, the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party, and a copy of the

response on all other parties who have appeared..." (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.250(a).) If a party to whom request for admissions are served fails to provide a timely response, the party to whom the request was directed waives any objections, including based on privilege or the work product doctrine. (See Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(a).) The requesting party can move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the request be deemed admitted, as well as for monetary sanctions. (See Code Civ.

Proc. Sec. 2033.280(b).) The court shall issue this order unless the party to whom the request was made serves a response in substantial compliance prior to the hearing on the motion. (See Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(c).) IV. ANALYSIS Splendore moves to compel Brockett's responses to his Requests for Production (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and Form Interrogatories (Set One). Splendore also moves to deem admitted as to Brockett his Requests for Admission (Set One). Because the Motions rely on substantially similar facts, the Court will address them together.

On March 30, 2026, Splendore served on Brockett his SROGs, FROGs, RFPs, and RFAs. (See e.g. SROGs Declaration of Erica Barseghian filed June 26, 2026 ("SROGs Barseghian Decl."), P. 3.) Splendore's counsel attests he has not received initial responses to date despite having sent a meet and confer letter to Brockett's counsel. (See id., P.P. 6-7.) Brockett's counsel attests he provided Splendore's counsel with discovery responses and documents to the best of his ability, but several owners related to this property dispute are deceased and documents cannot be located. (See Declaration of Michael E.

Barmasse filed August 14, 2026., P. 6.) Brockett's counsel attests this is a matter for mediation. (See id., P. 7.) The Court rules on discovery motions based on the circumstances at the time the motion was filed. Because Splendore had not received initial responses at the time of filing the instant Motions, the Court GRANTS Splendore's Motions to Compel SROGs, FROGs, and RFPs. The Court GRANTS Splendore's Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted. Brockett is ordered to provide responses without objection on or before September 4, 2026.

V. DISCOVERY SANCTIONS "The court shall impose a monetary sanction ¿ . . . ¿ against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel ¿ . . ." responses to interrogatories or production demands, absent substantial justification or other circumstances that make imposing the sanctions unjust. ¿ (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2030.290(c), Sec. 2031.300(c).) The court shall also impose a "monetary sanction...on the party or

attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion." (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2033.280(c).) Splendore requests discovery sanctions in the amount of $960.00 in connection with each discovery motion. This total comprises 1 hour to prepare each Motion, 1 hour to prepare a Reply, and 1 hour to attend the hearing at counsel's hourly rate of $300.00. (See e.g. SROGs Barseghian Decl., P. 8.) Splendore also incurred a $60.00 filing fee for each motion. (See id.)

The Court awards Splendore discovery sanctions of $840.00. The Court finds 1.5 hours to prepare 4 routine, substantially similar discovery motions and 0.5 hours to remotely appear at the hearing and counsel's hourly rate is reasonable. The Court also awards the filing fees. Brockett is ordered to pay Plaintiff's counsel $840.00 on or before September 30, 2026. VI. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Splendore's Motions to Compel SROGs, FROGs, and RFPs. The Court GRANTS Splendore's Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted.

Brockett is ordered to provide responses without objection on or before September 4, 2026. Brockett's counsel is ordered to pay Plaintiff's counsel $840.00 on or before September 30, 2026. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 19, 2026 Hon. Michael R. Amerian Judge, Superior Court | [1] All statutory references are to California codes unless stated otherwise. Case Number: 25VECV04853 Hearing Date: August 19, 2026 Dept: O The Court will be denying entry of default judgment for the following reasons: 1.

Statement of Damages requirement is unsatisfied. A Statement of Damages is not filed with the Court nor mentioned in the 585 declaration. Thus, it appears it was not served prior to entry of default as required. The SOD must be served on Defendant and default requested again because the Court will be striking entry of default.

2. Evidence regarding loss of earnings/future earnings is insufficient. The submitted evidence does not support a conclusion Plaintiffs have incurred losses in earnings or future earnings due to any reputational harm. In addition, the Court will issue a separate order denying Plaintiff's Application to Seal. In short, while the Court finds the allegedly defamatory statements are so inflammatory that allowing them to remain public will serve to advance Defendant's allegedly malicious intent to defame Plaintiffs more than allowing them to remain public will serve the right of public access, Plaintiff's request is not narrowly to Plaintiffs' interest. That separate order will provide further detail on which information should and shouldn't be redacted. Case Number: 26VECV00828 Hearing Date: August 19, 2026 Dept: O SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA