GREGORIO CONTRERAS SANCHEZ, ET AL VS. FIDEL CONTRERAS SANCHEZ, ET AL

May 22, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 7 HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ intentional destruction of evidence warranting the Court’s unqualifies condemnation. Cedars Sanai Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal. 4th 1, 4. Not only does spoilation undermine the jury’s ability to fairly decide a case, but it threatens the integrity of the legal process. Intestinal spoilation exists where a party knows of a potential or existing claim for damages, and the object destroyed might constitute evidence in that action. Gomez v. Acquistapacc (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747. Subject to, and without waiving objections, Responding Party answers: Responding Party is in the process of attempting to obtain these records, if any exist, after they were stolen by the Defendants.

(See, e.g., Stone Decl., Ex. B, at Response to Request for Production No. 1 [emphasis added].) Plaintiffs also incorporated all objections set forth in their response to interrogatories referenced in the RFP requests. (Ibid.)

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ response constitutes a statement of compliance under which a motion to compel pursuant to CCP Section 2031.320 is proper.

Section 2031.320(a) states:

“If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling . . . thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party's statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).)

Section 2031.320(a) applies only to a narrow circumstance where a party has filed a response stating compliance but then fails to permit the inspection or production in accordance with that statement of compliance.

Section 2031.220 sets forth what constitutes a statement of compliance:

A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220.)

Here, Plaintiffs’ RFP responses do not constitute valid statements of compliance under Section 2031.220. First, Plaintiffs’ responses include objections that appear to apply to the entire request. A statement of compliance promises the production of documents “to which no objection is being made.” (Ibid.) Second, Plaintiffs’ relevant responses state only that they are “in the process of attempting to obtain these records, if any exist.” (See, e.g., Stone Decl., Ex. B.) Plaintiffs’ commitment to produce is thus clearly conditional and indefinite rather than a clear commitment to produce.

Such a statement more closely resembles a representation of inability to comply under Section 2031.230, though that requires an “affirm[ation] that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand.” (CCP § 2031.230.) However, it is incomplete as a statement of inability to comply because it includes no such affirmation.

May 22, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar

HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________

The proper vehicle for then challenging insufficient discovery responses – including insufficient statements of compliance and/or insufficient statements of inability to comply – is CCP Section 2031.310:

On receipt of a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete.

(2) A representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive.

(3) An objection in the response is without merit or too general.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)

Defendants’ motion is therefore not actionable under Section 2031.320.

Critically, motions to compel pursuant to CCP Section 2031.310 must be made “within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have agreed in writing.” (CCP § 2031.310(c)) Thus, even if the Court were to treat Defendants’ motion as motion pursuant to Section 2031.310, it would be denied as untimely. (See Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 681, 685 [holding that the court lacks jurisdiction to order further responses if the filing of a motion to compel is delayed beyond the 45-day time limit].) As Plaintiffs have noted, they served verified discovery responses more than 825 days past (Opposition, pg. 2, lines 17-18), such that the 45-day window for such a motion has long expired.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Compel is DENIED.

SANCTIONS

The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes 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 the imposition of the sanction unjust.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (b).)

Defendants’ request for sanctions is DENIED, as Defendants’ motion to compel was unsuccessful.

Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is likewise DENIED.

First, the bulk of Plaintiffs’ opposition mischaracterizes Defendants’ motion to compel as having been previously litigated. This is erroneous, as the motion to compel here concerned Plaintiffs’ alleged failure to follow through with purported statements of compliance in response to RFPs propounded by Defendants, whereas the prior motions cited by Plaintiffs concerned their responses to Defendants’ Special Interrogatories and Requests for Admission. (See Liga Decl., Exs. C and E.) The Court does not

May 22, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 9 HONORABLE MICHAEL L. MAU, Department 20 ________________________________________________________________________ view this motion to be in bad faith and, accordingly, Plaintiffs’ attempts to frame this motion as part of an ongoing pattern of misconduct are unconvincing.

Second, the Court finds it was not unreasonable for Defendants to argue that Plaintiffs’ conditional promises to produce documents, if any were found, could be statements of compliance. Notably, Plaintiffs did not directly address this issue in their opposition and thus appear to not have grasped the issue themselves. Despite denying Defendants’ motion, the Court finds Defendants’ basis for the motion to be substantially justified and therefore not worthy of sanctions.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept20@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the CRC. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be filed or e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.