DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24STCV31305·la·Civil·Discovery Dispute
Hearing in about 2 hoursGRANTED in part, DENIED in part

Tom Thomas, et al. v. Renewal By Andersen LLC

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

Hearing date
Aug 28, 2026
Department
513
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$1,532.00$842.00

Parties

PlaintiffTom Thomas
PlaintiffDavid Duyck
DefendantRenewal By Andersen LLC

Ruling

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 513) August 28, 2026 DEPARTMENT 513 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Court of California County of Los Angeles - Central District Department 513 Tom Thomas, et al.; Plaintiffs, vs. Renewal By Andersen LLC; Defendant. | Case No.: |

| | | Hearing Date: | August 28, 2026 | | | Time: | 10:00 a.m. | | | [Tentative] Order RE: Defendant's Motion to CompeL PLaintiffs' Further Responses to Special Interrogatories | MOVING PARTY: Defendant Renewal by Andersen, LLC RESPONDING PARTY: No opposition. Motion to Compel

Further Responses to Special Interrogatories The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion. No opposition was filed.

DISCUSSION Defendant Renewal by Andersen, LLC ("Defendant") moves the court for an order compelling plaintiffs Tom Thomas and David Duyck ("Plaintiffs') to serve further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and for sanctions in the amount of $1,532.00 for Defendant and against Plaintiffs.

The court grants Defendant's motion to compel Plaintiffs to serve further responses to Special Interrogatory No. 36 because the objections to the interrogatory are without merit. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.300, subd. (a)(3).)

The court grants Defendant's motion to compel Plaintiffs to serve further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 59, 61, 62, 65, 66, 69, 70, 96, 105, 106, 107, 108, 123, and 124 because (1) Plaintiffs' answers to the interrogatories are evasive and incomplete, and (2) the objections to the interrogatories are without merit. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.300, subd. (a)(1)(3).)

The court denies Defendant's motion to compel Plaintiffs to serve further responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 91-93 because the interrogatories are unintelligible.

The court grants Defendant's request for monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.300, subd. (c).) The court finds that $842.00 ($230 per hour x 3.4 hours = $782 attorney's fees + $60 motion filing fee) is a reasonable amount of sanctions to impose against Plaintiffs in connection with this motion. (Hrabar Decl. P.P. 8-9.)

ORDER The court grants in part defendant Renewal by Anderson LLC's motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, the court orders plaintiffs Tom Thomas and David Duyck to serve further, full and complete answers to defendant Renewal by Anderson LLC's Special Interrogatories Nos. 36, 59, 61, 62, 65, 66, 69, 70, 96, 105, 106, 107, 108, 123, and 124, without objections and which comply with Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.210-2030.250, within 20 days of the date of service of this order.

The court orders plaintiffs Tom Thomas and David Duyck to pay monetary sanctions to defendant Renewal by Andersen, LLC. in the amount of $842.00 within 30 days of the date of service of this order.

The court orders defendant Renewal by Anderson LLC to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 28, 2026 _____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III Judge of the Superior Court | Home -->)" -->

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