ANN P. JOHN v. JACE VARGHESE; VEENA VARGHESE

TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR August 24, 2026. Department S29 - Judge Nicole Quintana Winter

This court follows California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a) (1) for tentative rulings. (See San Bernardino Superior Court Local Emergency Rule 8.) Tentative rulings for each law & motion will be posted on the internet (https://www.sb-court.org) by 3:00 p.m. or 7:00 p.m. on the court day immediately before the hearing.

If you wish to submit on the ruling, call the Court, check-in and state that you will be submitting on the Tentative, and your continued appearance is not necessary. However, you must check in. If both sides do not appear, the tentative will simply become the ruling. If any party submits on the tentative, the Court will not alter the tentative and it will become the ruling. If one party wants to argue, Court will hear argument but will not change the tentative. If the Court does decide to modify tentative after argument, then a further hearing for oral argument will be reset for both parties to be heard at the same time by the Court. This procedure is meant to minimize your waiting time in Court.

ANN P. JOHN v. JACE VARGHESE; VEENA VARGHESE

Motion: Compel Further re (1) Request for Production of Documents (Set 2), and (2) Requests for Production of Documents (Set 4) Movant: (1)-(2) Plaintiff Ann P. John Respondent: (1) Defendant Veena Varghese, and (2) Defendant Jace Varghese ______________________________________________________________________________ MOTION Plaintiff John propounded on April 27, 2026, Requests for Production of Documents, set 2 (RFPs 2), on Defendant Veena, and RFPs, set 4 (RFPs 4) on Defendant Jace. On June 1, 2026, they served objection-only responses. (Exhs.

B-C to John’s Decls.; Gentile Decl. at ¶¶2-3.)1 Thereafter, on August 10 and 11, they served Amended and Second Amended Responses. (Gentile Decl. at ¶7, Exh. B.) Before the amended responses were served, Plaintiff John moved to compel further responses to RFPs 2 from Veena on June 30, 2026, and further responses to RFPs 4 from Jace on July 16, 2026. Defendants Varghese oppose.

DISCUSSIONS Statement of the Law A party who deems a statement of compliance with a document demand as incomplete, or the representation of inability to comply as inadequate, incomplete, or evasion, or an objection to a document demand as without merit or too general can move to compel further responses. (Code Civ. Proc., §2031.310, subd. (a).)

1 Attorney Gentile filed identical declarations in support of each opposition, so the reference to one is a reference to the other. Page | 1

The motion to compel must be noticed within 45 days of receipt of the responses (plus the additional time if not personally served). (Code Civ. Proc., §2031.310, subd. (c).) The motion must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts “showing a reasonable and good-faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion” before filing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§2016.040, 2031.310, subd. (b)(2).) Additionally, the moving party must set forth facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand. (Code Civ.

Proc., §2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) The Court shall impose monetary sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a compel further motion unless the court finds that the sanctionable party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §2031.310, subd. (h).)

Analysis

As Defendants have served amended and second amended responses, the motions are moot. If Plaintiff John remains dissatisfied with the responses served, then she needs to meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by teleconference. If no resolution is reached, then she may file any appropriate compel further motion. The only issue is whether Plaintiff John is entitled to sanctions. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409.) Generally, although attorney fees, as discovery sanctions, may not be recovered by a pro per litigant [Argaman v.

Ratan (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1178-79], the pro per litigant may recover costs incurred, if reasonably identified and allocable, as discovery sanctions [Leiper v. Gallegos (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 284, 288, 297; Kravitz v. Superior Court (Milner) (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1015, 1020]. Under each Motion, Plaintiff requests $304.85 for incurred costs. (Exh. K to John Decl. (Veena), Exh. J to John Decl (Jace).) In the meet and confer after the motion was filed, Defense Counsel indicated a willingness to pay said amount in an attempt to compromise the matter.

However, before filing the motions, Plaintiff failed to engage in a code-compliant meet and confer, i.e., her meet and confer was via emails only. Yet, the law requires the meet and confer to be in person, by telephone, or by videoconference. Additionally, although the Notice of Motion indicates seeking sanctions, John never identifies against whom, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040. Therefore, the Court denies John’s request for sanctions. Finally, Court denies Defendants request for sanctions as Defendants were not the prevailing party and their failure to timely respond to discovery demands resulted in the subject motions.

Page | 2

RULING The Court rules as follows: 1. Finds Plaintiff John’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPs, set 2, from Defendant Veena is moot.

2. Finds Plaintiff John’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to RFPs, set 4, from Defendant Jace moot; 3. Denies Plaintiff John’s request for sanctions under both motions; and

Dated: August 24, 2026

____________________________ Judge Nicole Quintana Winter

Page | 3