DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CECG04901·fresno·Civil·Discovery Dispute
Hearing 3 months agoGRANTED

Williams v. Afarian

Defendant Fresno Community Hospital’s Motions to Compel Initial Responses to Discovery from Plaintiffs Barbara Aliane Williams and Vicki La Chon Cole and Request for Monetary Sanctions

Hearing date
May 21, 2026
Department
403
Judge
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$525

Parties

PlaintiffBarbara Aliane Williams
PlaintiffVicki La Chon Cole
DefendantFresno Community Hospital and Medical Center

Ruling

(03) Tentative Ruling

Re: Williams v. Afarian Case No. 24CECG04901

Hearing Date: May 21, 2026 (Dept. 403)

Motion: Defendant Fresno Community Hospital’s Motions to Compel Initial Responses to Discovery from Plaintiffs Barbara Aliane Williams and Vicki La Chon Cole and Request for Monetary Sanctions

Tentative Ruling:

To grant defendant Fresno Community Hospital’s motions to compel plaintiffs Barbara Aliane Williams and Vicki La Chon Cole to provide initial responses without objections to defendant’s form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production, set one. To grant defendant’s request for sanctions against plaintiffs, in the amount of $525 against each plaintiff.

Plaintiffs shall serve their verified responses without objections within ten days of the date of service of this order. Plaintiffs shall pay sanctions within 30 days of the date of service of this order.

If oral argument is timely requested, it will be entertained on Thursday, May 28, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 403.

Explanation:

Plaintiffs have failed to respond to any of the discovery requests of defendant Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center, dba Community Regional Medical Center (CRMC), despite the passage of more than a year since the requests were served. All extensions of time have now expired and plaintiffs’ counsel has withdrawn from representing plaintiffs, yet plaintiffs have still failed to serve any responses to any of the requests. Therefore, plaintiffs are subject to being ordered to provide initial responses to the discovery, without objections. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290; 2031.300.)

The court will also grant the defendant’s request for sanctions against plaintiffs, as sanctions are mandatory where a party fails to respond to discovery and the failure to respond is unjustified. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c); 2031.300, subd. (c).) Here, plaintiffs have not made any attempt to show that their failure to respond was justified, or that other circumstances would make imposition of sanctions unjust. The requested amount of sanctions is also reasonable. Therefore, the court intends to grant sanctions of $525 against each plaintiff and in favor of defendant CRMC.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order

adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: lmg on 05/20/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

4

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share