Nunes – Trust
Respondent Mervyn Nunes’s Motion to Compel Further Responses by Petitioner Peggy Nunes; Petitioner Peggy Nunes’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Request for Admission Responses
Motion type
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
Monetary amounts referenced
Parties
Ruling
Superior Court of the State of California County of Orange TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR DEPARTMENT CM06 HON. JUDGE Megan L. Wagner
Date: 07/29/26 Court Room Rules and Notices
# Case Name Tentative 1 Nunes – Trust (2024- Motions to Compel (2) 01396741) Respondent Mervyn Nunes’s Motion to [Compel] Further Responses by Petitioner Peggy Nunes (ROA 100) is DENIED. The accompanying request for sanctions is DENIED.
Petitioner Peggy Nunes’ Motion to [Compel] Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Request for Admission Responses, and for Monetary Sanctions (ROA 109) is DENIED. The court is inclined to grant Respondent’s request for sanctions in the amount of $1,575. The parties should be prepared to discuss this award. Petitioner’s request for sanctions is DENIED.
I. RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO COMPEL (ROA 100)
By his motion, Respondent seeks to compel Petitioner to further respond to special interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production of documents. The discovery was served on May 9, 2025. Responses were provided on March 9, 2026. Respondent filed his motion to compel on April 22, 2026. Petitioner served amended responses that same day (ROA 148 at 5:6-7) rendering the motion moot. The motion could and should have been withdrawn.
Respondent’s motion to compel is DENIED.
II. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO COMPEL (ROA 109)
By her motion to compel, Petitioner seeks to compel Respondents Mervyn Nunes and Theresa Nunes to further respond to certain written discovery. The discovery was served on March 17, 2026, and included more than two hundred separate requests. On April 15, 2026, Respondents requested an additional two weeks in which to respond. The request was denied and on April 17, 2026, Respondents served objections without any substantive responses.
On April 30, 2026, Petitioner filed her motion to compel. On an unspecified date, but after the motion was filed and before the opposition was submitted, Respondents provided supplemental responses rendering the motion moot. The motion could and should have been withdrawn.
Cited authorities
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?”