Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
34-2022-00326202-CU-BC-GDS: Martin Tejeda vs. Keith Seibert 04/02/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses Form Interrogatories in Department 54
Tentative Ruling
Defendant TT&G Bradview, LLCs (Defendant) motion to compel Plaintiff Martin Tejeda (Plaintiff) to provide further responses to the formers Form Interrogatories, Set One, is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED as follows.
Defendant served the subject discovery on August 17, 2023. (Bartlett Decl., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff provided responses on September 22, 2023 and supplemental responses on October 10, 2023. (Id., ¶¶ 4-5.) During meet-and-confer, Plaintiffs counsel extended the deadline to bring the instant motion but failed to substantively respond to Defendants contentions regarding the deficiency of the responses. (Id., ¶¶ 6-8, Exhs. D-E.)
Defendant now moves for an order compelling further responses. Defendant argues a further response should be required because Plaintiffs responses are incomplete and the general objections lack merit. Plaintiff did not file an opposition justifying the objections or otherwise explaining why further responses should not be required.
The motion is granted. Plaintiff shall serve verified responses by no later than April 17, 2024.
Defendants request for sanctions is denied as the motion is unopposed. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(d) [authorizing monetary sanctions against a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response.].) However, Plaintiffs counsel is admonished that future failures to adequately and substantively meet and confer may result in the imposition of discovery sanctions.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules Court, rule 3.1312.)
Moving counsels notice of motion does not provide notice of the Courts tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact Plaintiff's counsel and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Courts tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact Plaintiff's counsel prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing.
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?”
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
34-2022-00326202-CU-BC-GDS: Martin Tejeda vs. Keith Seibert 04/02/2024 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses Form Interrogatories in Department 54
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 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.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
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 Courts 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 Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.