Wicker v. IMAX Corporation. et al.

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 735) August 24, 2026 DEPARTMENT 735 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

IMAX Corporation. et al. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions The court declines to take judicial notice of a prior order in an unrelated action. Plaintiff moves for further responses to requests for admissions numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 on grounds that responses are noncompliant and therefore insufficient. Plaintiff also challenges the "vague and ambiguous" objections.

Defendant in opposition first contends an inadequate meet and confer effort. Defendant next specifically identifies the "admit" response to numbers 1 and 2. On numbers 4, 5 and 6, Defendant reiterates the vague and ambiguous objections. Plaintiff reached out in an effort to meet and confer. [Declaration of Armen Zenjiryan, P. 4, Ex. 2.] Defendant asserts limited effort, but also presents no proof of a response to the initial effort. [Declaration of Joseph Hadacek, P.P. 3-4, Ex B.] The effort appears sufficient. Further, the court held an IDC on the subject items. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.290, subd. (b)(1).)

For requests numbers 1 and 2, the responses admit to no written policies. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.220, subd. (b)(1).) For numbers 4, 5, and 6, Plaintiff requests information about the alleged promotion policy, including the timing of any disclosure to Plaintiff. Defendant responds only with a "vague and ambiguous" objection and inability to "admit or deny" the request. The objections are unconvincing. Defendant both knows its own policies at the time (for number 4), and also should be aware of the person(s) responsible for promotion decisions and communications with direct reports.

CONCLUSION The Court denies Plaintiff's Motion to Compel further responses to request for admissions, numbers 1 and 2, and grants the Motion to Compel further responses to numbers 4, 5, and 6. Given the mixed outcome of the Plaintiff's motion arising from Defendant's opposition having some justification, the court denies sanctions. Plaintiff to give notice.

Case Number: 25STCV31438 Hearing Date: August 24, 2026 Dept: 735 Supply & Demand, Inc. v. Anthony Kaye, et al.

Plaintiff propounded discovery on March 17, 2026. Defendant Anthony Kaye ("Defendant") provided deficient, objection-only responses on April 20, 2026. The parties met and conferred multiple times between April and May 2026 and eventually agreed to narrow certain defined terms and for Defendant to serve supplemental responses by June 3, 2026. Defendant, however, served supplemental responses on August 11, 2026, the same day as his opposition was filed. Based on the supplemental responses, Plaintiff, in reply, requests supplemental responses to Requests for Admissions Nos. 3-8, 18, 26, and 31-33.