Laura Ulrich v. Dina Cabral, et al.

Laura Ulrich v. Dina Cabral, et al.

Defendant Dina Cabral’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Hearing Date: May 15, 2026

Defendant Dina Cabral (“Defendant”) moves to compel Plaintiff Laura Ulrich1 (“Plaintiff”) to serve further responses to Defendant’s first set of discovery requests, which include Requests for Admission (“RFAs”), Special Interrogatories (“Interrogatories”), and Requests for Production of Documents (“RPDs”) (collectively, “Discovery”). Defendant also requests monetary sanctions for Plaintiff’s misuse of the discovery process. As explained below, Defendant’s motion to compel and request for sanctions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

Further, PARTIES TO APPEAR to discuss the First Amended Complaint, whether Defendant’s Answer relates to the First Amended Complaint, and when this Court should set a Further Case Management Conference.

Background.

This is a limited civil case. In her Complaint filed on January 16, 2025, Plaintiff alleged that she purchased a horse named Skip ‘N Jump Will (“Will”) from Defendant, a professional horse dealer with extensive experience in equine matters. Plaintiff found Will advertised on PlatinumEquineAuction.com and, trusting the positive claims made about Will’s qualities in the ad, decided to buy the horse, resulting in a contractual agreement between the parties. Later, Plaintiff took Will to a trainer, who then advised that Will was not in suitable condition for riding and could be dangerous to Plaintiff. Defendant allegedly failed to address the issues that Plaintiff raised regarding Will.

Defendant demurred to the Complaint, and it was overruled on November 4, 2025. In the demurrer order, the Court directed Plaintiff to “file the omitted Exhibit A to the Complaint by November 7, 2025, or the court may strike the Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action in the Complaint.” [Order, filed 11/7/25, at 3.] Two days later, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint attaching the parties’ contract as Exhibit A.

On November 25, 2025, Defendant answered the Complaint, generally denying all allegations and asserting various affirmative defenses.

1 Plaintiff claims that her true name is “Lauri Uhrich” and that the operative Complaint mistakenly names her as “Laura Ulrich.” [Opp. at 1.] The term “Plaintiff” covers both names. 1

To discover facts about Plaintiff’s claims, Defendant served her first set of Discovery on Plaintiff. [Bush Decl. at ¶ 2 and Exhs. 1-3.] Defendant argues that the Discovery was “narrowly targeted to determine: (1) who placed the winning bid, (2) who paid for the horse, (3) whether Plaintiff ever acquired ownership or enforceable rights, and (4) whether any assignment or transfer of rights exists. [Motion at 2.] Plaintiff responded to the Discovery, but Defendant found them deficient for numerous reasons. [Bush Decl. at ¶¶ 5-8.] Despite their meet-and-confer efforts, the parties remain at an impasse and are unable to resolve their discovery disputes. [Ibid.] Defendant therefore filed this motion to compel.

Plaintiff’s Procedural Arguments.

Defendant’s Instruction “A”: Each Discovery includes an “Instructions” section on page two. [Exhibits to Bush Decl.: Exh. 1 (RFAs) at 2; Exh. 2 (Interrogatories) at 2; Exh. 3 (RPDs) at 2.] Instruction “A” for each Discovery is STRICKEN because that instruction incorrectly states that each Discovery request is “continuing” and that Plaintiff has a duty to supplement. In fact, California law does not require a party to have a continuing obligation to update or supplement outdated responses. [Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2033.060, 2030.060, 2031.050.] Instead, the propounding party must serve supplemental discovery to obtain any later-discovered information related to disclosures previously made by any party, and there are limits on how many times a supplemental discovery can be used. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.090.]

Defendant’s Misuse of Defined Terms: Defendant fails to comply with the Discovery Act due to her inconsistent use of specially defined terms in her Interrogatories and RFAs. “Any term specially defined in [an interrogatory or request for admission] shall be typed with all letters capitalized whenever the term appears.” [Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.060, subd. (e), 2033.060, subd. (e).] For example, “YOU” and “YOUR” are defined terms in the Interrogatories, yet Defendant uses “you” throughout. [See Interrogatories, Exh. 1 to Bush Decl. at Nos. 1-13.] Additionally, “AS-IS” is not a defined term. [Id. at No. 7.]

Limited Civil Discovery: Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant exceeded the discovery limits set by Code of Civil Procedure2 section 94, subdivision (a), is MOOT. This statute limits discovery in limited jurisdiction cases to a total of 35 items, including interrogatories without subparts, document demands, and requests for admission without subparts. In this case, Defendant issued a total of 31 requests and interrogatories, including 10 RFAs, 8 RPDs, and 13 Interrogatories. [Exhs. 1-3 to Bush Decl.]

Plaintiff argues that the limits were exceeded because many of the Interrogatories contain subparts. When these subparts are included, the total number of Interrogatories increases to 26. [Opp. at 4-5.] For example, Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 9 clearly have multiple subparts, while Nos. 3 and 6 do not. Although section 94 does not specify consequences for exceeding 35 items, the responding party only needs to answer the first 35 Interrogatories served. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.030, subd. (c).] Since the Interrogatories in question come after No. 5, which is the only one relevant to Defendant’s motion, the fact that the limits were exceeded does not doom Defendant’s motion.

2 Hereinafter, and unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 2

Sufficiency of Meet and Confer: Defendant has sufficiently met and conferred with Plaintiff, and the Court will not deny the motion on that basis. Defense counsel’s January 2, 2026, letter reviews the items and explains why each of the noted responses was inadequate or why an objection may lack merit. For example, with regard to RFA No. 3, which asks whether the action registration identifies Robert Uhrich as the bidder, the response included objections to the terms “bidder” and “time.” Plaintiff then denied, with discovery ongoing, reserving the right to amend. The letter states that this item seeks admission of a documentary fact directly related to the purchaser’s identity and forum selection, and that a conditional denial violates section 2033.220. Therefore, Defendant has adequately met and conferred with Plaintiff before filing this motion.

Interrogatories.

1. Legal Standards.

“[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.” [Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.] “Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery of any other party to the action.” [Ibid.] That discovery may be obtained “of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” [Ibid.]

A party serving interrogatories may file a motion for an order compelling further responses if that party believes an answer is, among other things, evasive or incomplete, or an objection lacks merit or is too broad. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300, subd. (a).] If a timely motion to compel is filed, the responding party has the burden to justify any objection or failure to answer the interrogatories fully. [Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221; Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.]

In assessing the motion, a court should generally consider the following factors: (1) the relationship of the information sought to the issues framed in the pleadings; (2) the likelihood that disclosure will be of practical benefit to the party seeking discovery; and (3) the burden or expense likely to be encountered by the responding party in furnishing the information sought. [Columbia Broadcast System, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19.]

2. Discussion.

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s further response to Interrogatory No. 5 (“State all facts describing the purchase of the horse by LAURA ULRICH”) is GRANTED. Plaintiff objected to this interrogatory on grounds that it calls for attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, improper lay opinion, and improper expert opinion. Plaintiff has not sufficiently justified her objections because there is not enough information to demonstrate that the attorneyclient privilege and the attorney work product doctrine apply to a “state all facts” interrogatory. To the extent that answering requires revealing attorney work product, that alone is not a valid

objection. The other objections lack merit. “An interrogatory may relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based. An interrogatory is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or would be based on information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation or in preparation for trial.” [Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.010(b).] Therefore, the motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff shall provide a verified and Code-compliant further response to Interrogatory No.

5.

RPDs.

1. Legal Standards.

If a party responding to a request for production fails to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling as specified in that party’s statement of compliance, the requesting party may file a motion for an order to enforce compliance. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.320, subd. (a).] A motion to compel further responses to a request for production must include specific facts demonstrating “good cause” to justify the discovery sought by the demand. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).] If the moving party shows good cause for producing documents, the burden shifts to the objecting party to justify the objections. [Kirkland v.

Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.] The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully files or opposes a motion to compel further responses to a demand for inspection or production of documents, or a motion to compel compliance with a demand, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make it unjust to impose sanctions. [Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2031.310, subd. (h), and 2031.320, subd. (b).]

2. Discussion.

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to RPD Nos. 1, 2, and 5-8 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

Preliminarily, Defendant has shown good cause to justify the documents requested in the RPDs. [Bush Decl. at ¶¶ 4-7.]

Plaintiff failed to provide a Code-compliant response to RPD No. 2, which requests the production of all documents related to the purchase of the horse. After several objections, Plaintiff identified the Contract attached to the First Amended Complaint. However, Plaintiff’s response does not satisfy section 2031.220 because it is unclear “that all documents or things in [RPD No. 2] that are in [Plaintiff’s] possession, custody, or control . . . and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.”

Plaintiff did not justify her objections to RPD Nos. 2 and 5-8. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240.] Insufficient information was provided to support claims of privilege or work product. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).] The RPDs clearly indicated that the name “Laura Ulrich” or “YOU” refers to Plaintiff.

Regarding RPD Nos. 5 and 6, those requests are too broad. Therefore, RPD No. 5 is limited to documents from the transaction that list Plaintiff as Will’s purchaser. For RPD No. 6, the request is limited to documents showing an assignment of rights from Robert Uhrich to Plaintiff concerning Will.

For RPD No. 1, the motion is DENIED, and no further response is necessary because the response to RPD No. 2 included documents related to the transaction that would identify the person placing the winning bid.

In sum, as detailed above, the motion is GRANTED IN PART, and Plaintiff shall provide verified and Code-compliant responses to RPD Nos. 2, 5-6 (as limited above), and 7-8. Where applicable, Plaintiff must produce all non-privileged documents and/or a privilege log consistent with section 2031.240, subdivision (b)(1), for any documents withheld based on a claimed privilege. Regarding RPD No. 1, the motion is DENIED.

RFAs.

1. Legal Standards.

The party receiving requests for admission must respond in writing under oath to each request individually. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.210, subd. (a).] A party can respond by either admitting, denying, or objecting to the request. [Id. at subd. (b).] If part of a request is objectionable, the responding party must answer the unaffected portion. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.230, subd. (a).] Any denial of all or part of a request must be clear and unequivocal. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220; American Federation of State, County & Mun. Employees v. Metropolitan Water Dist. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 247, 268.]

When the propounding party believes that the responses to requests for admission are inadequate or that any objections to the requests are unjustified, that party may file a motion to compel further responses. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290; St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 776.] The grounds for such a motion include that (1) the answer to a particular request for admission is evasive or incomplete, or (2) an objection to a request for admission is without merit or too general. [Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290, subd. (a).] The Court shall impose monetary sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses, unless it finds that the individual subject to the sanctions acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make imposing sanctions unjust. [Id. at subd. (d).]

2. Discussion.

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses to RFA Nos. 1-10 is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s RFA responses were not “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.” [Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220, subd. (a).] The objections based on vagueness and ambiguity left unclear whether the denial of the RFAs, as written, was complete or depended on the interpretation of certain terms. Given the requirement in section 2033.220 that a reasonable inquiry must be made, it is concerning when a

qualified response states, “Discovery is continuing. Responding Party reserves the right to amend.” [See Plaintiff’s Response to RFAs, passim, Exh. 4 to Bush Decl.] Plaintiff must provide verified, Code-compliant further responses to RFA Nos. 1-10 that do not include (1) objections based on vagueness or ambiguity, and (2) the statement that “Discovery is continuing. Responding Party reserves the right to amend.”

The Court notes the following: Since she did not make any admissions, Plaintiff does not need court approval under section 2033.300, subdivision a, to withdraw or amend an admission. Additionally, the operative Complaint was filed under the name “Laura Ulrich,” and the Court has not approved any request to amend that name. Regardless, the RFAs clearly indicated that the name represents Plaintiff.

Sanctions.

“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to a demand, 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. § 2031.310, subd. (h); see also Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300 and 2033.290.]

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED, and Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Monetary sanctions are justified, and Plaintiff did not have substantial justification for a different ruling. When the motion was filed, Defendant had valid grounds to seek additional responses from Plaintiff. The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff’s responses were partly due to discovery issues that Defendant could have addressed more effectively. Nonetheless, Defendant succeeded on the majority of the issues raised in the motion.

Therefore, and considering that this is a limited civil action and the Discovery that Defendant served was not very clear, the Court will award sanctions, but not the full amount requested by Defendant. Instead, the Court will order monetary sanctions of $1,000 to Defendant and against Plaintiff and her attorney, jointly and severally. This amount covers four hours of Defendant’s counsel’s work at an hourly rate of $250.

Conclusion.

As detailed above, Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART, and Plaintiff has 10 days from the date of service of the Court’s order to serve verified, Code-compliant further responses to RFA Nos. 1-10, Interrogatory No. 5, and RPD Nos. 2 and 5-8. Otherwise, the motion is DENIED IN PART, and Defendant need not further respond to RPD No.

1.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Monetary sanctions of $1,000 are awarded to Defendant and against Plaintiff and her attorney of record, jointly and severally, payable within 30 days from the date of service of the Court’s order. Plaintiff’s sanctions request is DENIED.

Defendant shall prepare the Proposed Order consistent with this Tentative Ruling.

6