DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CVP-0245·slo·Civil·Civil
Hearing in about 2 hoursGRANTED in part

Merilee Drew v. Bruce Black, et al.

Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions

Hearing date
Aug 25, 2026
Department
Not stated
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$1,027.50$705$645$60

Parties

PlaintiffMerilee Drew
DefendantBruce Black
DefendantGoldi Black Trust

Ruling

Merilee Drew vs. Bruce Black, et al., 25CVP-0245

Hearing: Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions

Date: August 25, 2026

Merilee Drew (Drew or Plaintiff) filed this action on July 7, 2025. Drew filed a second amended complaint (SAC) on January 21, 2026 against Bruce Black (Black) and the Goldi Black Trust (the Trust) (collectively Defendants).

On May 1, 2026, Black served on Plaintiff, Special Interrogatories, Set One by mail and electronic transmission. (Howell Dec., ¶ 3, Ex. A.)

Now before the Court is Black’s motion to compel responses to special interrogatories and for sanctions in the amount of $1,027.50. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. The motion will be granted in part.

Plaintiff has not provided responses. (Howell Dec., ¶ 4.) On July 1, 2026, counsel emailed Plaintiff regarding Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the special interrogatories. (Id., ¶ 5.) As of July 22, 2026, Black’s counsel had not received a response. (Ibid.)

All that need be shown for purposes of a motion to compel initial responses is that the discovery was properly served; that the time to respond has expired; and that no response of any kind has been served. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2026) ¶ 8:1140; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (b) [interrogatories], 2031.300, subd. (b) [RFPs].) Black has made that showing here. The Court intends to grant the motion to compel responses to special interrogatories, unless the Plaintiff serves the required responses by the date of the hearing.

Finally, Black seeks $1,027.50 in costs and attorney’s fees against Plaintiff. (Howell Decl., ¶ 6.) This represents 4.5 total hours, including two hours to respond to any opposition and attend the hearing, at $215 per hour plus the $60 filing fee.

The Court grants Black’s request for sanctions in a reduced amount, as no opposition was filed. The Court will award monetary sanctions to Black in the total amount of $705 against Plaintiff (3 hours x $215 = $645 + $60). “The amount of monetary sanctions is limited to the ‘reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees’ that a party incurred as a result of the discovery abuse. (§ 2023.030(a), italics added.) The principle of reasonableness means a trial court has discretion to reduce the amount of fees and costs requested as a discovery sanction in order to reach a reasonable award. [Citation.]” (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare REIT, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.)

1

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share