Motions to Compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Admissions
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
JOSE ESQUIVEL, Case No.: CIVSB2436488 Plaintiff, [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTIONS v. TO COMPEL FILED BY PLAINTIFF JOSE ESQUIVEL DONALD BISHOP, ET AL., Defendants.
VI. INTRODUCTION
This is a breach of contract action. On December 6, 2024, Plaintiff Jose Esquivel filed his
initial Complaint against Defendants Donald Bishop, Adman Bishop, and Stacey Bishop. The
operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of contract;
(2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) conspiracy to commit fraud; (4)
fraud; and (5) unjust enrichment. Defendants answered.
The FAC alleges that since 2006 and until 2024, Defendants engaged in fraudulent
conduct and enriched themselves by making fraudulent promises to Plaintiff of ownership to The
Old Town Bakery, Inc. In exchange, Plaintiff offered his efforts, special skills, and knowledge in
making the variety of products to be advertised and sold at Defendants’ business. In 2006
Defendants’ business was barely making it by selling cookies and cupcakes. Once Defendants
learned of Plaintiff’s skills, his recipes and experience, Defendants lured and induced Plaintiff to
pour in all his efforts, recipes and sweat equity into the business in exchange for 25% of the
business. Plaintiff fulfilled his obligations while Defendants continued to promise regularly that
he was entitled to said 25% interest and to continue to do his maximum efforts but instead of
giving Plaintiff his 25%, Plaintiff only received the continued promise. (FAC ¶¶ 7-17 and 19-
35.)
On June 6, 2025, Plaintiff served Form Interrogatories, Set One (FRG#1), Special
Interrogatories, Set One (SRG#1), and Request for Admissions, Set One (RFA#1) on Defendants
Adman Bishop and Stacey Bishop. (Flores-Burt Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) Defendants Adman Bishop
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?”
and Stacey Bishop served their initial responses on July 13, 2025. (Flores-Burt Decl. ¶ 3.)
On July 14, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a Meet and Confer Letter to Defendants’
counsel Tyler Brown addressing alleged deficiencies. (Flores-Burt Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. A.)
Defendants’ counsel responded that supplemental responses would be provided by August 8,
2025. At that time, both counsel agreed to extend the time to file a motion to compel until
September 15, 2025. (Flores-Burt Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. B.)
The supplemental responses were served on August 7, 2025, but Plaintiff asserts that they
(1) were equally deficient as the original responses; (2) were still not code compliant; and (3)
added additional objections which had not been timely raised. (Flores-Burt Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. 3.)
On August 20, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a further meet and confer letter to
Defendants’ counsel requesting they further supplement Defendants’ responses to the requested
discovery. (Flores-Burt Decl. ¶ 7, Exh. C.) No further supplemental responses were served.
(Flores-Burt Decl. ¶ 8.)
Now Plaintiff moves to compel Defendants Adman Bishop’s and Stacey Bishop’s further
responses to FRG#1, SRG#1, and RFA#1. Defendants filed oppositions. Plaintiff filed replies.
After issuing a tentative ruling and holding a hearing on the motion, the Court now issues its
final ruling.2
VII. APPLICABLE LAW A party who deems responses to propounded interrogatories (form or special) as evasive
or incomplete, an objection is without merit or too general, or the exercise of the option to
produce documents is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate
can move to compel further responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).) Similarly, a
party who deems responses to propounded requests for admissions as evasive or incomplete, or
an objection is without merit or too general can move to compel further responses. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a).)
The motion to compel must be noticed within 45 days of receipt of verified responses
(plus the additional time if not personally served). (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c),
2033.290, subd. (c).) The motion to compel must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts
showing a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally the issues presented by the
motion before filing the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (b), 2033.290, subd. (b),
2016.040.)
The Court shall impose monetary sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who
unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further responses unless the court finds that
2 The Court finds that the moving party has complied with its meet-and-confer obligation.
the sanctionable party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the
imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2033.290, subd. (d).)
VIII. WHY THE COURT IS DENYING THE MOTION A. No Accompanying Separate Statement
Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, a motion to compel further responses to
Interrogatories or requests for admissions must be accompanied by a separate statement that
includes the specific interrogatory in dispute, the response provided to the interrogatory in
dispute, and the factual and legal reasons why further responses are sought. (Cal. Rules of Court,
Rule 3.1345.)
The Court is DENYING this motion because Plaintiff failed to comply with this rule.
(Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 892-93, rehearing denied, review denied (trial
court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery, as plaintiffs
failed to comply with rule governing format of discovery motions, which required that any
motion involving content of discovery request or responses to such request be accompanied by a
separate statement); see also Neary v. Regents of University of California (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d
1136, 1145.)
Plaintiff tried to remedy the procedural error on reply by providing separate statements.
However, this is inappropriate and a breach of Defendants’ due process rights.
B. Sanctions
Plaintiff requests sanctions under all six motions against Defendants Adman Bishop and
Stacey Bishop. But since all of Plaintiff’s motions are being denied as procedurally defective, the
Court is DENYING Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.
Defendants Adman Bishop and Stacey Bishop also request sanctions in their oppositions
to all six motions. This request is also denied. These motions were brought in good faith by
Plaintiffs, notwithstanding their procedural defect.
IX. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motions to compel a further response to FRG#1, SRG#1 and RFA#1 are
respectfully DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions and Defendants Adman Bishop’s and Stacey Bishop’s
requests for sanctions are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: [TENTATIVE – NOT FINAL] Hon. Joseph B. Widman Judge of the Superior Court