Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
34-2021-00311890-CU-PO-GDS: Mayra Barrera vs. Page Hudson 08/11/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses in Department 54
ID: 16039062174
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.
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant Dr. Jeffrey A. Saladin, Dental Corporation dba Childrens Choice Pediatric Dental Cares (Defendant) motion to compel Plaintiff Mayra Barrera (Plaintiff) to serve further responses to Defendants Special Interrogatories, Set Five is DENIED.
Defendants motion fails to include a separate statement as required by California Rules of Court rule 3.1345(a)(2). Nor has Defendant submitted anything that could be considered a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute. (
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?”
The fact that Plaintiff provided a separate statement that included the responses does not cure this defect. Indeed, it is not clear which interrogatories are even at issue. The notice of motion and memorandum do not specify which interrogatories are the subject of the motion. To add to the confusion, Defendants counsels declaration indicates that Special Interrogatory Nos. 115, 117, 119, and 129 are at issue (Culley Decl., ¶ 12), but the meet and confer letter attached to counsels declaration identifies Special Interrogatory Nos. 118, 119, 128, 129, 130, and 131 (Culley Decl., Exh.
B.).
34-2021-00311890-CU-PO-GDS: Mayra Barrera vs. Page Hudson 08/11/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses in Department 54
Accordingly, Defendants motion is DENIED.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)