A, M. v. FORESTHILL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT

PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT THURSDAY, CIVIL LAW AND MOTION DEPARTMENT 3 THE HONORABLE MICHAEL W. JONES TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR AUGUST 20 2026, AT 8:30 A.M.

7. S-CV-0055800 A, M. v. FORESTHILL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Response by Foresthill Union School District to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions

Preliminary Matters

Plaintiffs’ requests for judicial notice are granted.

Ruling on Motion

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant Foresthill Union School District further responses to plaintiffs’ request for production of document, set one, is denied as to request for production of documents numbers 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 10. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.)

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is further denied as to request for production of documents, set one, number 5 because it is not included in the separate statement.

Moreover, plaintiffs motion to compel is denied as to request for production of documents, set one, number 1 because the separate statement seeks the court to compel further responses to all documents defendant identified in their responses to plaintiffs’ form interrogatories yet the only form interrogatory responses plaintiffs provided to the court are form interrogatories numbers 4.1 and 4.2. (Balch Dec’l, Ex. A.) However, the moving papers, separate statement, opposition, and reply do not discuss the insurance information and instead argue about various reports authored by certain individuals. The court cannot determine whether compelling a response is proper without plaintiffs properly identifying the category of documents it seeks.

Plaintiffs’ motion is granted as to requests for production of documents, set one, numbers 8 and 9 with the temporal limitation of documents existing 2 years preceding and up to the filing of the complaint. Defendant shall provide further verified responses and documents without objections within 20 days after service of signed order after hearing.

Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is denied because defendant acted with substantial justification.

///

PLACER SUPERIOR COURT – DEPARTMENT 3 Thursday Civil Law and Motion – Tentative Rulings