Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
24CV018126: CHANNEL PARTNERS CAPITAL, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A CHANNEL PARTNERS EQUIPMENT FINANCE vs LOWBRAU BIER GARTEN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 09/03/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses Further Responses to Demand for Production as to Michael Hagis in Department 53
Tentative Ruling
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Public Notice Civil Division Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 25, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.
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.
The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Courts Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing.
The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:
https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept25
SIP Address:
16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com
(833) 568-8864
ID: 16113421868
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
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?”
24CV018126: CHANNEL PARTNERS CAPITAL, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A CHANNEL PARTNERS EQUIPMENT FINANCE vs LOWBRAU BIER GARTEN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 09/03/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses Further Responses to Demand for Production as to Michael Hagis in Department 53
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.
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiffs Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Courts tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Plaintiffs counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Courts tentative ruling procedure. If Plaintiffs counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Plaintiffs counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely (telephonically or by video conference via Zoom as stated in the introductory notice to todays tentative rulings), in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).
Plaintiff Channel Partners Capital, LLCs (Plaintiff) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One from Defendant Mchael Hagis (Defendant) is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.
Plaintiff served the at issue discovery requests on December 23, 2024. (Gost Decl., ¶ 2.) Defendant served objection only responses on January 24, 2025. (Gost Decl., ¶ 3.)
Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, set one.
Defendant does not oppose the motion. A party's failure to oppose a motion is construed as a concession on the merits of the motion. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
24CV018126: CHANNEL PARTNERS CAPITAL, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A CHANNEL PARTNERS EQUIPMENT FINANCE vs LOWBRAU BIER GARTEN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 09/03/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses Further Responses to Demand for Production as to Michael Hagis in Department 53
Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion to compel is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve amended responses on or before October 3, 2025.
Plaintiffs request for sanctions is denied as the motion is unopposed. Although California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a) purports to authorize sanctions if the motion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governing this discovery authorize sanctions only if the motion was unsuccessfully made or opposed. (See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h), and 2033.290(d).) Any order imposing sanctions under the California Rules of Court must conform to the conditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing sanctions. (Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v. Firmaterr, Inc. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 355.) However, repeated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an abuse of the discovery process and award sanctions on that basis. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 481.)
Plaintiff shall serve Defendant with notice of this ruling within five (5) days.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.