MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
PROBATE CALENDAR – Hon. Joseph J. Solga, Dept. B (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.
Estate of Janell Switzer 23PR000173
[1] MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is MOOT. The parties’ respective requests for sanctions are DENIED.
The moving party fails to include, in the notice of this motion, the current version of the Tentative Ruling notice required by Local Rule 2.9, effective 1/1/26. The current version allows a party or counsel to request a hearing by calling the Court or emailing the Court, at JudicialReception2@napa.courts.ca.gov and providing specified information set out in Local Rule 2.9. The moving party is therefore directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the current Tentative Ruling notice explicitly required by Local Rule 2.9 to opposing party/ies forthwith.
The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.
Petitioner Clair Amador (“Petitioner”) moves, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.310, 2023.010 et seq., and 2023.030, 1 for an order compelling Respondent Mark Amador (“Respondent”) to provide further, verified, code-compliant responses, without objections, to Demand for Production of Documents Nos. 1-45 and produce all responsive documents within his possession, custody, or control within 20 days. Petitioner further moves for an award of monetary sanctions against Respondent and his counsel of record, Elizabeth A. Blair, Esq., and Blair Law, jointly and severally, in the amount of $4,675.00, representing reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion.
Respondent opposes the Motion on the grounds that: (1) Petitioner failed to adequately meet and confer as required by section 2016.040; (2) Petitioner fails to state facts showing that good cause exists for the production of documents as required by section 2031.310, subdivision (b)(1); (3) Respondent asserted specific and meritorious objections to Nos. 2 and 45 on the grounds that the demands are burdensome and oppressive and beyond the scope of permissible discovery; (4) Respondent asserted specific and meritorious objections to Nos. 27, 28, and 38 on the grounds that tax documents are not discoverable; (5) Respondent cannot be compelled to produce documents that do not exist; and (6) Respondent served supplemental responses and produced all responsive documents on May 6, 2026 (the same date as the Opposition was filed). (Opposition, p. 2; see also Declaration of Elizabeth A.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Blair, ¶ 9, Exh. D (“Blair Decl.”).)
There is no Reply on file.
1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified.
Respondent’s service of supplemental responses to the subject discovery renders issues relating to the adequacy of the original responses moot. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405-06 [whether to proceed with a motion to compel responses when there has been a response – albeit untimely – is within the sound discretion of the court].) Even to the extent Petitioner contends the supplemental responses are in some way deficient, issues regarding the supplemental responses are not properly before the Court at this time.
Petitioner’s request for sanctions is DENIED on the ground that the motion could have been avoided or, at the very least, narrowed had Petitioner met and conferred in a good faith effort to informally resolve the matter. The Court finds Petitioner’s counsel’s meet and confer efforts woefully insufficient. (See Declaration of Steven H. Kuhn, ¶¶ 4-7, Exhs. 1-4; Blair Decl., ¶¶ 5-8.)
Respondent’s request for sanctions pursuant to section 2031.310, subdivision (h) is DENIED on the ground that the Court did not reach the merits of the Motion and therefore declines to conclude that it is unsuccessful. (See § 2031.310, subd. (h) [“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction ... against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes ... a motion to compel further response to a demand, 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.”].)
[2] MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is MOOT. The parties’ respective requests for sanctions are DENIED.
The moving party fails to include, in the notice of this motion, the current version of the Tentative Ruling notice required by Local Rule 2.9, effective 1/1/26. The current version allows a party or counsel to request a hearing by calling the Court or emailing the Court, at JudicialReception2@napa.courts.ca.gov and providing specified information set out in Local Rule 2.9. The moving party is therefore directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the current Tentative Ruling notice explicitly required by Local Rule 2.9 to opposing party/ies forthwith.
The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.
Petitioner Clair Amador (“Petitioner”) moves, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.300, 2023.010 et seq., and 2023.030,2 for an order compelling Respondent Mark Amador (“Respondent”) to provide further, verified, code-compliant responses, without objections, to Special Interrogatories Nos. 8, 17, 18, 21, 22, 25, 26, and 27, within 20 days. Petitioner further moves for an award of monetary sanctions against Respondent and his counsel 2 All subsequent statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified.
of record, Elizabeth A. Blair, Esq., and Blair Law, jointly and severally, in the amount of $2,335.00, representing reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion.
Respondent opposes the Motion on the grounds that: (1) Petitioner failed to adequately meet and confer as required by section 2016.040; (2) Respondent asserted specific and meritorious objections to these Special Interrogatories; and (3) Respondent served supplemental responses to all Special Interrogatories on May 6, 2026 (the same date as the Opposition was filed). (Opposition, p. 2; Declaration of Elizabeth A. Blair, ¶ 9 (“Blair Decl.”).)
There is no Reply on file.
Respondent’s service of supplemental responses to the subject discovery renders issues relating to the adequacy of the original responses moot. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405-06 [whether to proceed with a motion to compel responses when there has been a response – albeit untimely – is within the sound discretion of the court].) Even to the extent Petitioner contends the supplemental responses are in some way deficient, issues regarding the supplemental responses are not properly before the Court at this time.
Petitioner’s request for sanctions is DENIED on the ground that the motion could have been avoided or, at the very least, narrowed had Petitioner met and conferred in a good faith effort to informally resolve the matter. The Court finds Petitioner’s counsel’s meet and confer efforts woefully insufficient. (See Declaration of Steven H. Kuhn, ¶¶ 4-7, Exhs. 1-4; Blair Decl., ¶¶ 5-8.)
Respondent’s request for sanctions pursuant to section 2031.310, subdivision (h) is DENIED on the ground that the Court did not reach the merits of the Motion and therefore declines to conclude that it is unsuccessful. (See § 2031.310, subd. (h) [“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction ... against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes ... a motion to compel further response to a demand, 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.”].)
In The Matter of Valerie T. Armijo Revocable Trust 26PR000059
PETITION FOR ORDER CONFIRMING TRUST OWNERSHIP OF ASSETS
TENTATIVE RULING: The matter is CONTINUED to June 30, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. B to permit Petitioner an opportunity to address the following issues.
The Notice of Hearing does not contain “[a] description of the subject property sufficient to provide adequate notice to any party who may have an interest in the property.” (Prob. Code, § 851, subd. (c)(1).) The statement “See the bank statements in the CONFIDENTIAL STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ASSETS IN SUPPORT OF CONFIRMATION OF TRUST ASSETS” is vague and ambiguous and does not satisfy the requirements of the statute.
6