DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC23607679·sf·Civil·Discovery
Hearing 8 months agoGRANTED in part, DENIED in part; partial sanctions awarded

MAYA BLYTH VS. LEAL UGRIN ET AL

Motion To Compel Defendant Leal Ugrin To Provide Further Responses To Requests For Production Of Documents And Tangible Things Sets One And Two, Production Of Documents And Request For Monetary Sanctions

Hearing date
Dec 30, 2025
Department
301
Prevailing
Mixed

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$500

Parties

PlaintiffMAYA BLYTH
DefendantLEAL UGRIN

Ruling

Matter on the Law & Motion and Discovery Calendar for Tuesday, December 30, 2025, Line 2, PLAINTIFF MAYA BLYTH's Motion To Compel Defendant Leal Ugrin To Provide Further Responses To Requests For Production Of Documents And Tangible Things Sets One And Two, Production Of Documents And Request For Monetary Sanctions.

Plaintiff Maya Blyth's motion to compel further responses to RFPs, sets one and two, is granted in part and the court awards partial sanctions.

For RFPs 11, 12, and 27 where Ugrin has stated he is producing responsive documents, he must identify by bates number which requests the documents are responsive to. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2031.280, subd. (a).) Ugrin's opposition states he was willing to amend. (Supp. Opp. Br., p. 7.) This code provision is supposed to be self-executing and should not require meet and confer efforts or amendment to achieve.

For RFP 16, Ugrin's response includes the artificial limitation that he is producing only text messages. Ugrin shall amend to make a complete statement of compliance of documents sent to Blythe by Ugrin and shall produce all responsive documents.

For RFP 25, 26, 29: Ugrin's response complies with Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 2031.230, because it states his belief that responsive documents have never existed. No further response is ordered.

The request for an order that Ugrin amend his verifications is denied because the requests ask for documents from former agents and employees rather than merely documents in his present possession, custody or control. Ugrin shall amend within two weeks. The court awards sanctions of $500 payable by Ugrin to Blythe within 30 days of notice of entry of this order.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/CVA) | |

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