Motion to Compel Responses to Written Discovery and Request for Sanctions
JUNE 1, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 2 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Case Title / Nature of Case
02:00 PM LINE 1 22-CIV-01897 SHUYIN NG, ET AL VS. CHRISTINE M BOLTS
SHUYIN NG CHRISTOPHER W ROSE CHRISTINE M BOLTS JAMES E. SELL
Defendant’s Motion and Motion to Compel
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Christine M. Bolts’ unopposed Motion to Compel Responses to Written Discovery and Request for Sanctions is CONTINUED TO JULY 13, 2026 AND THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO AN IDC ON JUNE 22, 2026 AT 2 p.m. It is of note that if the Court were to have addressed the motion today it would have been denied.
As a preliminary matter, there is no indication that Plaintiffs Shuyin Ng and Ping Fung Victor Chung have been served notice of the correct hearing date. A notice of motion is required to specify the correct date of the hearing. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110. Because the only proof of service of notice of the motion was filed at the same time as the notice, there is no indication that notice of the amended hearing date set by the clerk’s office upon filing of the notice has been served on Ng or Chung. Oct. 7, 2025 Notice of Motion, pp. 1, 3. The Court understands that this issue is at least partially a result of multiple changes in judicial assignment since the motion was filed, but it remains moving party’s obligation.
Furthermore, the proofs of service of the motion and its supporting papers—as well as the proofs of service of the underlying discovery—are defective. Each of the papers was served electronically, the proof of which must set forth the date of electronic service. Code Civ. Proc., § 1013b, subd. (b)(2). The proofs fail to state the date of service. See, e.g., Oct. 7, 2025 Notice of Motion, p.
3.
A “court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a motion that has not been properly noticed for hearing on the date in question.”
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?”
Further, it is unclear to the Court whether there is a live dispute and/or whether there are additional disputes that have arisen since this motion was filed. Moving Party fails to explain why the verification rendered the supplemental interrogatory responses invalid. And with respect to the requests for production, Moving Party does not address the significance of the September 30, 2025 email attached to its declaration. In addition, the minutes from the March 5, 2026 CMC reference other general discovery disputes that were outstanding and that served as an impediment to setting trial. And, the parties have not yet had an IDC. Accordingly, the parties are Ordered to participate in an IDC in good faith on June 22, 2026 at 2 p.m. and address outstanding discovery disputes.