Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV023830: SEALES-PERKINS, et al. vs SACRAMENTO CITY COLLEGE, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16C
Tentative Ruling Please take notice, Department 54 has moved to Department 16C at the Tani G. Cantil- Sakauye Courthouse. The new courthouse is located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Los Rios Community College District and Linda Delgadillos (collectively Defendants) motion to compel Plaintiff Tuesday Seales-Perkins (Plaintiff) to provide further responses to the following sets of requests for production of documents is OPPOSED and DROPPED for the failure to comply with Local Rule 2.31(E):
1) Defendant Los Rios Community College Districts Request for Production of Documents, set one, Nos. 1-34, 36-93; and
2) Defendant Linda Delgadillos Request for Production of Documents, set one, Nos. 1-17.
Local Rule 2.31(E), which took effect July 1, 2024, states:
When simultaneously filing multiple discovery-related motions in the same case with the same hearing date, each motion shall be filed as a separate document and a separate filing fee paid for each. Parties may not combine motions pertaining to different types of discovery within the same document. Failure to comply with any part of this rule regarding discovery motions may, in the discretion of the court, be grounds for the motions being dropped without consideration.
Defendants motion seeks multiple forms of relief as it requests further responses to two separate sets of requests for production of documents that were separately served on Plaintiff. Although the same form of discovery was served (i.e., requests for production
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV023830: SEALES-PERKINS, et al. vs SACRAMENTO CITY COLLEGE, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16C
of documents), one set was served by each Defendant, and the motion seeks relief on behalf of two Defendants. Instead of filing two separate motions as to each set of requests for production of documents served by each Defendant, Defendants collectively filed a single joint motion.
Accordingly, the motion is DROPPED due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Local Rule 2.31(E).
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (
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?”
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 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014.
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
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV023830: SEALES-PERKINS, et al. vs SACRAMENTO CITY COLLEGE, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One in Department 16C
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 forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.