In the Matter of Daniel M. Lennox Special Needs Trust

While the mere service of responses following a motion to compel does not necessarily render the motion moot (see, Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 406 [held: trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on a motion to compel responses pursuant to 2030.290 where responding party served responses after filing of motion]), the Court finds that Piner’s service of substantive answers and a significant volume of documents renders each of Ms. Kilgore’s requests, save that for monetary sanctions, MOOT.

The Court acknowledges Ms. Kilgore’s assertions that certain of the answers set forth in the supplemental responses are deficient for various reasons, and that no documents responsive to certain Requests for Production have been produced. (See Reply at 2:8-5:5.) The adequacy of these answers is not formally before the Court on the instant Motion; Considering these issues would deprive Piner’s of due process in the form of an opportunity to respond. The parties are urged to meet and confer in good faith to resolve these remaining disputes.

The Court further finds that imposition of monetary sanctions, under the circumstances, would be unjust. Ms. Kilgore served a substantial number of discovery requests together. While Piner’s did not produce responses by the deadlines set by the Civil Discovery Act, the Court finds that it did proceed with diligence to collect the information and documents, and prepare and serve responses. Moreover, the Court finds that Piner’s counsel was communicative with Ms. Kilgore’s counsel continuously through the process.

Trial preference necessarily increases the time pressures associated with litigation. In the context of these pressures, the Court acknowledges Ms. Kilgore’s need to bring the instant motion as a hedge against the possibility that Piner’s was not diligently working to produce responses and documents as counsel was representing. However, in light of the fact that Piner’s was diligently working towards that production, the Court finds that an award of monetary sanctions would be unjust.

PROBATE CALENDAR – Hon. Joseph J. Solga, Dept. B (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.

In the Matter of Daniel M. Lennox Special Needs Trust 18PR000271

PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF NINTH ACCOUNT AND REPORT OF TRUSTEE AND APPROVAL OF TRUSTEE’S FEES

TENTATIVE RULING: The petition is GRANTED, including fees as prayed.

4