| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories; Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories; Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production; Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions; Motion for Monetary Sanctions
SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC24617461 - July 29, 2025 Hearing date: July 29, 2025 Case number: CGC24617461 Case title: MARIA MONICA SAGULLO VS. EUGENE A. CHANG ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24617461 | Case Title: | | MARIA MONICA SAGULLO VS. EUGENE A. CHANG ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-07-29 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion For An Order Compelling Defendant To: 1. To Provide Further Written Responses To Form Interrogatories (Set One); 2. To Provide Further Written Responses To Special Interrogatories (Set One); 3.
To Provide Further Written Responses To Requests For Production (Set One), And Produce Documents; 4. To Provide Further Written Responses To Requests For Admissions (Set One); And 5. To Pay Monetary Sanctions | Rulings: | | 123Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Tuesday, July 29, 2025, line 6, PLAINTIFF MARIA SAGULLO'S Motion For An Order Compelling Defendant To: 1. To Provide Further Written Responses To Form Interrogatories (Set One); 2. To Provide Further Written Responses To Special Interrogatories (Set One); 3.
To Provide Further Written Responses To Requests For Production (Set One), And Produce Documents; 4. To Provide Further Written Responses To Requests For Admissions (Set One); And 5. To Pay Monetary Sanctions
Plaintiff Maria Monica Sagullo's unopposed motion for an order compelling further responses from defendant Eugene A. Chang to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission, and for sanctions, is granted. The discovery at issue on this motion is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (CCP Section 2017.010.)
Chang's objections lack merit and are overruled. A party responding to interrogatories and requests for admission is required to provide complete, straightforward responses wherever possible. (CCP 2030.220 (interrogatories); 2033.220 (RFAs).) A party responding to RFPs is required to respond with either a statement of compliance, a statement of inability to comply, or an objection. (2031.210.) If the party objects, it must include the statement of compliance or inability to comply as to any portion of the RFP not covered by the objection (2031.240(a)), and it must identify categories of documents that it is withholding pursuant to the objection (2031.240(b).) Chang's responses have failed to comply with these statutory requirements.
Chang is ordered to make further responses to the discovery at issue in this motion within 20 days of entry of this order. The court does not find that Chang acted with substantial justification in making or defending his discovery responses. Sagullo's requested discovery sanction is reasonable, but the court does not award time for reviewing an opposition brief and preparing a responsive reply because no opposition brief was filed. The court orders Chang to pay $2,615 to Sagullo within 30 days of entry of this order.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) 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 contestdept301tr@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 contestdept301tr@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 or Discovery 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/CVA) | |