| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
PETITION FOR ORDER CONFIRMING TRUST OWNERSHIP OF ASSETS
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
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?”
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.
Moreover, Petitioner gave only 11 days’ notice of the present hearing where 30 days’ notice is required. (See Prob. Code §§ 17203, subd. (a), and 851, subd. (a).)
Finally, “[a] record must not be filed under seal without a court order. The court must not permit a record to be filed under seal based solely on the agreement or stipulation of the parties.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.55(a).) The public enjoys a significant interest in accessing the records of proceedings before their courts. In general, the First Amendment provides the public its right of access to ordinary civil trials and proceedings. (NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1212 (KNBC-TV).)
These rights are protected through the Rules of Court. “Unless confidentiality is required by law, court records are presumed to be open.” (Rules of Court, rule 2.550, subd. (c).) “The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish: (1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.” (Id. at subd. (d); see also KNBC-TV, supra, at 1217-18.) “A party requesting that a record be filed under seal must file a motion or an application for an order sealing the record. The motion or application must be accompanied by a memorandum and a declaration containing facts sufficient to justify the sealing.” (Id. at rule 2.551, subd. (b)(1).)
Petitioner has repeatedly presented documents for filing as “Confidential.” The Court is aware of no law that provides for the confidentiality of evidence filed in support of a Petition under either Probate Code section 17200 or Probate Code section 850, et seq. As such, no documents are to be filed under seal (or on a confidential basis) except by order of the Court made pursuant to the Rules of Court cited above. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(a).)
Based on the foregoing, the Court Clerk is directed to remove from the Court’s file, and lodge under seal (see California Rules of Court, rule 2.550(b)(3)), the Notice of Hearing presented for filing on May 8, 2026, and the Confidential Statement of Financial Assets presented for filing on April 16, 2026. Petitioner is granted 10 Court days, from entry of the instant order, to file a motion to seal the foregoing documents. If no such motion is filed, the Clerk is directed to return the documents to Petitioner unfiled.
7