DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC23606372·sf·Civil·Discovery Dispute
Hearing about 1 year agoGRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; Request for order establishing admissions denied; monetary sanctions of $1,360 awarded.

WILL FREDERICKS ET AL VS. ROBERT FELTER ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Deem Requests For Admissions To Plaintiff Will Fredericks Admitted And For Monetary Sanctions

Hearing date
Aug 12, 2025
Department
302
Judge
Prevailing
Mixed

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$1,360

Parties

PlaintiffWill Fredericks
DefendantRobert Felter

Attorneys

Jeffrey Woo(Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP)for Plaintiff

Ruling

Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Tuesday, August 12, 2025, Line 5. DEFENDANT ROBERT FELTER's Motion To Deem Requests For Admissions To Plaintiff Will Fredericks Admitted And For Monetary Sanctions.

Defendant /Cross-complainant Robert Felter's Motion To Deem Requests For Admissions To Plaintiff Will Fredericks Admitted And For Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Under CCP 2033.280(c), the court shall deem requests for admissions (RFAs) admitted, unless it finds the responding party, before hearing on the motion, served a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with CCP 2033.220. Here, it is undisputed Plaintiff Will Fredericks served substantially compliant, verified responses while this motion was pending. Thus, the request for an order establishing admissions is denied.

As for Defendant's sanctions request, the court must impose monetary sanctions on the party or attorney whose failure to serve a timely response necessitates the motion. (CCP 2033.280(c).) Here, Plaintiff failed to serve timely responses. The court orders Plaintiff Will Fredericks and his counsel Jeffrey Woo and Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, jointly and severally, to pay Felter $1,360 in sanctions by August 29, 2025.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) 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 contestdept302tr@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 contestdept302tr@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 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. =(302/JMQ) | |

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