RODRIGUEZ CHAVERO vs CLARK

25CV140807: RODRIGUEZ CHAVERO vs CLARK 09/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Hector Daniel Clark (Defendant) CRS# 481948300468 in Department 518

Tentative Ruling - 09/03/2026 Mark Fickes

The Motion to Compel Response to Request for Production of Documents filed by Hector Daniel Clark on 05/12/2026 is Granted in Part.

BACKGROUND

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Hector Daniel Clark’s (“Clark”) served Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Jose A. Rodriguez Chavero (“Rodriguez Chavero”) on March 19, 2026. Responses were due April 23, 2026. At the time the discovery was propounded and the responses came due, Rodriguez Chavero was self-represented and is a native Spanish speaker. He retained counsel later in the litigation.

As to the Special Interrogatories, Rodriguez Chavero served verified responses on May 7, 2026. Clark sent a meet-and-confer letter on May 12, 2026, demanding supplemental responses within ten days, and received no response. Clark filed his Motion to Compel Further Responses on May 26, 2026, challenging the responses to Interrogatories Nos. 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 19, 24, and 25 as evasive or incomplete, and seeking $270 in monetary sanctions. In reply, Clark narrowed the dispute to Interrogatories Nos. 7, 10, 16, 17, 19, 24, and 25.

As to the Request for Production of Documents, Rodriguez Chavero served no response by the April 23, 2026 due date. Clark sent a meet-and-confer letter on April 27, 2026 and, receiving no response, filed his Motion to Compel Responses on May 12, 2026, seeking verified responses without objections to fifteen requests and $220 in monetary sanctions. After the motion was filed, and after Rodriguez Chavero retained counsel, Rodriguez Chavero served verified written responses to the Request for Production on August 4, 2026.

LEGAL STANDARD

The two motions invoke different provisions of the Civil Discovery Act. A motion to compel a further response to interrogatories lies where an answer "is evasive or incomplete," where an exercise of the option to produce documents is inadequately specified, or where "[a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a)(1)- (3).) Such a motion "shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040" and must be brought "within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response," or the propounding party waives the right to compel further. (Id., subds. (b)(1), (c).)

A separate statement is generally required for a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(2).) In lieu of a separate statement, however, "the court may allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(2).) 25CV140807: RODRIGUEZ CHAVERO vs CLARK 09/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Hector Daniel Clark (Defendant) CRS# 481948300468 in Department 518

Where a party "fails to serve a timely response" to a demand for inspection, that party "waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege," and the demanding party "may move for an order compelling response to the ... demand." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subds. (a), (b).) A motion to compel initial responses is not subject to the 45-day limit, requires no meet-and-confer declaration, and requires no separate statement; a separate statement is "not required ... [w]hen no response has been provided to the request for discovery." (Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) The court may relieve a party of the waiver only where that party has since served a response in substantial compliance with the governing statutes and its failure to respond timely "was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a)(1)-(2).)

A demand for inspection requires a code-compliant written response to each item or category, consisting of a statement of compliance, a representation of inability to comply, or an objection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a).) Documents furnished with interrogatory answers do not substitute for that written response.

The service of an untimely response after a motion to compel responses has been filed "does not divest the trial court of authority to hear and grant a motion to compel responses." (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 396.) Belated compliance does not automatically moot the motion; the court may still award sanctions "even though ... the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed." (Id. at p. 409.)

For both motions, the court "shall impose a monetary sanction" against a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes the motion "unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.300, subd. (c); see id., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

The motion is timely and procedurally proper. Rodriguez Chavero served his verified responses on May 7, 2026, and Clark filed the motion on May 26, 2026, well within the 45-day period measured from service of the verified response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (c).) Clark's May 12, 2026 meet-and-confer letter satisfies the requirement of a meet-and-confer declaration under section 2016.040. (Id., subd. (b)(1).)

The Court has reviewed the challenged responses to Interrogatories Nos. 7, 10, 16, 17, 19, 24, and 25, as narrowed in Clark's reply. The responses are evasive or incomplete within the meaning of section 2030.300, subdivision (a)(1). Several answers are internally inconsistent or

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV140807: RODRIGUEZ CHAVERO vs CLARK 09/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Hector Daniel Clark (Defendant) CRS# 481948300468 in Department 518 contradicted by Rodriguez Chavero's own materials, including shifting statements of the storage rate charged and a substantial revision of the damages claimed. To the extent Rodriguez Chavero's answers rest on a professed inability to provide the information sought, that is not, standing alone, a code-compliant response to an interrogatory: a responding party must answer, exercise the option to produce writings, or object, and where the party lacks personal knowledge it must make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information. (Code Civ.

Proc., §§ 2030.210, subd. (a), 2030.220, subd. (c); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at pp. 406-407.) A further response is warranted.

The absence of a separate statement does not alter this result. Although a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories generally must be accompanied by a separate statement (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(2)), the requirement is not jurisdictional, and the Court retains discretion to allow the moving party to submit a concise outline of each request and response in dispute in lieu of a separate statement (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b)(2)). Clark's motion and reply set out each challenged interrogatory, the response given, and the asserted deficiency in a manner that has permitted full review of the disputed items. The Court exercises its discretion to consider the motion on the showing made. The separate-statement issue is therefore not dispositive.

B. Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents

Rodriguez Chavero served no timely response to the Request for Production of Documents, Set One. By operation of law, he thereby waived all objections to the demand, including any based on privilege. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) Because no response was served, the motion is one to compel initial responses under section 2031.300, subdivision (b); it is not subject to the 45-day limit, and no meet-and-confer declaration or separate statement was required. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.)

Rodriguez Chavero's service of verified written responses on August 4, 2026, after the motion was filed, does not deprive the Court of authority to hear and grant the motion, nor does it automatically moot the motion. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at pp. 396, 409.) To the extent Rodriguez Chavero contends that documents furnished with his interrogatory responses satisfied his obligations, that contention is incorrect: a demand for inspection requires a separate, code-compliant written response to each item or category, and documents produced in connection with interrogatory answers do not substitute for that response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.210, subd. (a).)

Accordingly, the Court grants the motion and orders Rodriguez Chavero to serve verified responses, without objection, that comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210 et seq., and to produce all responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control. This order is without prejudice to a properly noticed motion by Rodriguez Chavero for relief from the waiver of objections under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (a), on a showing that

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV140807: RODRIGUEZ CHAVERO vs CLARK 09/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Hector Daniel Clark (Defendant) CRS# 481948300468 in Department 518 his August 4, 2026 responses are in substantial compliance with the governing statutes and that his failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. Any such motion shall be filed and served within the time and in the manner provided by law.

C. Monetary Sanctions

Although Clark has prevailed on both motions, the Court declines to impose the monetary sanctions he requests. The Court "shall impose a monetary sanction" on the party who unsuccessfully opposes such a motion "unless it finds ... that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.300, subd. (c).) Such circumstances are present here. Rodriguez Chavero was self-represented and proceeding without the assistance of counsel when the discovery was propounded and the responses came due, and he is a native Spanish speaker who was navigating the discovery process in a second language.

He has since retained counsel and, through counsel, served supplemental verified interrogatory responses and verified responses to the Request for Production. On this record, the discovery deficiencies are attributable in substantial part to Rodriguez Chavero's lack of representation and language barrier rather than to willful noncompliance, and the belated engagement of counsel has advanced the responses toward compliance. The Court finds that these circumstances make the imposition of monetary sanctions unjust, and it denies the sanctions requests as to both motions.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court orders as follows:

1. Defendant/Cross-Complainant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, is GRANTED. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant shall serve further verified responses, without objection, to Special Interrogatories Nos. 7, 10, 16, 17, 19, 24, and 25 within 20 days of service of notice of this Order.

2. Defendant/Cross-Complainant's Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, is GRANTED. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant shall serve verified responses, without objection, that comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210 et seq., and shall produce all responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control, within 20 days of service of notice of this Order. This Order is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a properly noticed motion by Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant for relief from the waiver of objections under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300, subdivision (a).

3. Defendant/Cross-Complainant's requests for monetary sanctions in connection with both motions are DENIED.

CASE MANAGEMENT AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV140807: RODRIGUEZ CHAVERO vs CLARK 09/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Hector Daniel Clark (Defendant) CRS# 481948300468 in Department 518

The Court makes the following observations and directions, which apply to all further proceedings in this matter. This case has been marked by motion practice disproportionate to the issues and the amount in controversy, including the several motions the Court has now resolved and motions previously denied. The Court finds that the litigation has become over-litigated and unduly burdensome, and that more meaningful, good-faith meet-and-confer efforts would likely reduce the motion practice going forward. Now that both parties are represented by counsel, the Court expects counsel and the parties to act reasonably, to cooperate in the discovery process, and to resolve disputes without court intervention wherever possible.

To that end, the Court orders as follows:

1. All further meet-and-confer efforts required by statute or rule shall be conducted by video conference (for example, Zoom or a similar platform) and shall be recorded. The Court will not consider any motion for which a meet-and-confer effort is a prerequisite unless the moving papers are accompanied by a declaration attesting to that effort.

2. For any further motion for which meet-and-confer is required, if a party contests the Court's tentative ruling, both counsel and the parties themselves shall appear in person, and not remotely, at the hearing on that motion. They shall also bring a copy of the meet-and-confer efforts.

PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing.

To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:

First, the party must notify Department 518, by email at Dept518@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.

Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."

Please note the Court does not permit remote appearances for motions for summary judgment that are contested. If you contest a Motion for Summary Judgment, you must appear in person.

For all other motions (unless otherwise noted in the tentative ruling), Parties may appear via

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV140807: RODRIGUEZ CHAVERO vs CLARK 09/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by Hector Daniel Clark (Defendant) CRS# 481948300468 in Department 518 videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application. TO CONNECT TO ZOOM: Department 518 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting.

Topic: Department 518's Personal Meeting Room

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16054307984

Meeting ID: 160 5430 7984

One tap mobile +16692545252,,16054307984# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,16054307984# US (US Spanish Line)

---

Dial by your location • +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)