ASPEN TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, LLC vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, et al.

24CV015294: ASPEN TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, LLC vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, et al. 01/29/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Second Amended Special Inerrogatories, Set One in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Defendants California Department of Motor Vehicles’ (“DMV”) motion to compel plaintiff Aspen Technologies Group, LLC (“Plaintiff”) to serve verified further responses to DMV’s Second Amended Special Interrogatories, Set One numbers 1, 2, 6, 8, 16, 25, 36, 39, 47, and 122 is GRANTED as follows.

This action concerns contracts entered into between Plaintiff and DMV for Plaintiff to provide services for the development and hosting of DMV’s cloud-based contact center. This action arises form a dispute over millions of dollars in invoices that Plaintiff submitted in early 2023, which DMV disputed and rejected.

On March 28, 2025, DMV propounded Form Interrogatories, Set One and Set Two; Special interrogatories, Set One; and Request for Production of Documents, Set One, on Aspen. (Declaration of Angela Zugman (“Zugman Decl.”), ¶ 11.) At issue in this motion are the special interrogatories. Through the meet-and-confer process that occurred over three months, DMV’s special interrogatories were refined into the Amended Special Interrogatories (with a reduced number (171 to 129) and more detailed declaration of necessity) and ultimately the Second Amended Special Interrogatories (further revised to incorporate definitions requested by Aspen). (Ibid.) The Second Amended Special Interrogatories were served on June 20, 2025, and Plaintiff served objections and responses on August 1, 2025. (Zugman Decl., ¶¶ 24-27.)

DMV contends Plaintiff agreed during the meet-and-confer process to provide codecompliant responses if the interrogatories were amended a second time, but then refused to withdraw the boilerplate objections and responded to the at-issue special interrogatories by stating, “in response to this interrogatory and will supplement and/or amend this response once that further investigation is completed.” (Zugman Decl., ¶ 27.) DMV asserts it sent its final meet-and-confer letter on August 15, 2025, and Plaintiff responded maintaining its objections and responses to special interrogatories 1, 2, 6, 8, 16, 25, 36, 39, 47, and 122, which necessitated this motion. (Zugman Decl., ¶¶ 29-32.)

DMV asserts the at-issue special interrogatories are contention interrogatories drawn directly from Plaintiff’s own allegations seeking the factual basis for Plaintiff’s claims and alleged damages regarding the disputed invoices. DMV states that it engaged in goodfaith efforts to address Plaintiff’s multiple objections, by reducing the number of interrogatories and submitting another more detailed declaration of necessity (Amended Special Interrogatories), and then by revising the definitions per Plaintiff’s request (Second Amended Special Interrogatories). (Zugman Decl., ¶¶ 11-27.) Further, DMV’s counsel confirmed by letter Plaintiff’s agreement to provide responses to the Second

24CV015294: ASPEN TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, LLC vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, et al. 01/29/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Second Amended Special Inerrogatories, Set One in Department 54

Amended Special Interrogatories, which included the specific interrogatories now before the Court. (Id., ¶ 25.) Yet, Plaintiff never indicated that it would refuse to provide substantive responses or that it required more time to investigate its claims. (Id., ¶ 28.) Defendant contends there is no excuse for Plaintiff’s refusal to provide full, codecompliant responses.

Plaintiff opposes on the ground that the motion is moot because it served amended responses to the at-issue special interrogatories on November 21, 2025. Plaintiff also asserts DMV rushed to file this motion without proposing an agreement to extend the deadline to file a motion to compel, which Plaintiff asserts it would have agreed to. (Declaration of Robert Bodzin (“Bodzin Decl.”), ¶ 20.) Plaintiff contends it had already agreed to supplement its responses based on further investigation, which it did on November 21, 2025.

Service of responses after the motion was filed does not moot the motion. DMV is still entitled to an order as a motion is “made” when it is filed and served. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005.5.) Defendant’s service of responses before the hearing “does not divest the trial court of its authority” to grant the present motion. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 407 (Sinaiko).) At the time the motion was filed, Plaintiff had not served further responses.

Given the foregoing, and that Plaintiff does not contest serving verified further responses (as it has already done so), DMV’s motion to compel Plaintiff to serve verified further responses to the Second Amended Special Interrogatories numbers 1, 2, 6, 8, 16, 25, 36, 39, 47, and 122 is GRANTED. No later than February 5, 2026, Plaintiff shall serve verified further responses to the subject discovery. However, as the record indicates Plaintiff has already served verified further responses, it need not re-serve such responses.

The Court makes no determination at this time as to the sufficiency of any verified further responses. To the extent DMV may contend Plaintiff’s responses are deficient for some reason, DMV may file and serve an appropriate motion after completing the requisite meet-and-confer process.

Plaintiff also argues that sanctions are not warranted because it has participated in good faith meet and confer efforts to resolve the discovery dispute informally. Plaintiff contends it raised valid objections to DMV’s 171 “onerous and deficient” special interrogatories and a deficient Declaration of Necessity and then timely provided codecompliant responses to Plaintiff’s 129 First Amended Special Interrogatories and 28 Second Amended Special Interrogatories. Plaintiff asserts its good faith participation in

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015294: ASPEN TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, LLC vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, et al. 01/29/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Second Amended Special Inerrogatories, Set One in Department 54

the discovery process is confirmed by the fact that out of the 129 First Amended Special Interrogatories and 28 Second Amended Special Interrogatories responses it provided, DMV is seeking further responses only as to 10 Second Amended Special Interrogatories. Moreover, Plaintiff voluntarily provided supplemental responses upon completion of its investigation, which it served on November 21, 2025.

DMV’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel is DENIED as the Court has reviewed the procedural history between the parties and their meet-andconfer efforts and finds the opposition was filed with substantial justification and that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015294: ASPEN TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, LLC vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY, et al. 01/29/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Compelling Further Responses to Second Amended Special Inerrogatories, Set One in Department 54

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.