DYLAN HACKETT VS. ALEJANDRA GARCIA

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Tuesday, October 14, 2025, Line 12 [Part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling].

DEFENDANT ALEJANDRA GARCIA's Motion To Compel, To Have All Objections Deemed Waived, And For Monetary Sanctions. Defendant Alejandra Garcia seeks an order compelling plaintiff Dylan Hackett to provide further reponses to specified form interrogatories, and seeks sanctions against Hackett and his counsel. The motion is granted in part and denied in part as stated herein.

The form interrogatories at issue were served on June 24, 2025, via electronic service. (Neustadt Decl., para. 7 & Ex. D.) Hackett did not timely respond but submitted late responses on August 1, 2025. (Id., paras. 8, 10, & Ex. G.) Garcia met and conferred, and Hackett stated he would amend by August 11, 2025, but did not. (Id. para. 10 & Exs. H, I.)

Hackett opposes the motion with a declaration from counsel that offers no substantive defense of the interrogatory responses. (Hackett's counsel's declaration also asks for an order compelling Garcia's responses to other discovery propounded by Hackett. Hackett must make a separate motion for affirmative relief.) Hackett also apparently opposed the motion via a document captioned "reply" that the clerk did not accept for filing because it was a reply and not an opposition. The court exercises its discretion to consider this document as an opposition because Garcia provides a copy as Exhibit AA to the Neustadt reply declaration. Hackett also submitted a sur-reply on October 7, 2025. The court strikes the unauthorized sur-reply.

Hackett waived objections by failing to timely respond to Garcia's form interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2030.290, subd. (a).) A party may move for relief from waiver but must affirmatively move for relief, must show some excusable neglect that led to the failure to timely respond, and must show that the party has served substantially compliant responses. (Id.) The court has reviewed Hackett's responses and concludes they are not substantially compliant; moreover, Hackett offers no reason why there was no timely response in any of his filings.

The court orders Hackett to provide straightforward, nonevasive responses to the following form interrogatories without objections: 2.3, 2.5, 2.7, 2.11, 2.12, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 8.7 (no method of calculation is provided), 8.8, 9.1, 9.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.6. For those interrogatories where Hackett objections based on the term "incident," each interrogatory is sufficiently clear to merit a response. Incident means the circumstances and events giving rise to the action, as defined on the first page of the form.

The court does not order further responses to the following form interrogatories, finding them not sufficiently relevant to this action or ambiguous in the context of this action: 2.4, 2.13, 12.5, 12.7.

The court finds Hackett's response sufficient as to the following interrogatories: 6.2, 6.3, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6.

Garcia asks the court to require Hackett to reconcile the $19,000 per month income stated in response to 8.4 with the $45,000 loss alleged for the month after the incident in 8.5. The court denies this relief. A motion to compel generally does not lie to change the content of answers; a motion to compel merely requires a party to provide complete or nonevasive answers. [End of part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling.] =(301/CVA) | |