Motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2210
DATE: May 14, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)
**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**
9:00 A.M. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING Line 1 25CV466752 Menachem Hahn et Click LINE 1 or scroll down for ruling. al. v. Yu Cao et al. Line 2 25CV466752 Menachem Hahn et Click LINE 1 or scroll down for ruling. al. v. Yu Cao et al. Line 3 24CV439572 Abhishek Srivastava Plaintiff Abhishek Srivastava’s motion to compel further responses to v. BMW of North special interrogatories, set one. Notice is proper and the motion is America, LLC et al. opposed by defendant BMW of North America, LLC. Plaintiff moves to compel supplemental responses to special interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, and 4, which all seek information about what happened after plaintiff’s vehicle was delivered to BMW of Mountain View (including information about changes to the vehicle and inspections of the vehicle).
Defendant’s response referred plaintiff to service records from BMW of Mountain View that defendant has apparently produced in discovery. Defendant also indicated it would “produce the Warranty Vehicle Inquiry.” Defendant indicated it did not have further information responsive to the interrogatories. Defendant thereafter apparently supplemented its production with further records (including a confidential field report and additional service records). Plaintiff appears to conflate defendant and BMW of Mountain View, but they are distinct entities.
Defendant’s responses are code-compliant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230.) The motion to compel is DENIED. The court will prepare the order.
2
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?”