DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
201600486824CUFR·ventura·Civil·Discovery Dispute
Hearing 3 months agoMotions to compel granted; motion to deem facts admitted granted; request for sanctions granted ($2,860); requests for dismissal denied; trial continued to 12/14/26.

Toyaka Limited vs Akrey

Cross-Complainant Toyaka Limited Motions to Compel Cross-Defendant Rand Akrey’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production; Motion to Deem Facts Admitted; Request for Sanctions; Request for Dismissal

Hearing date
Jun 9, 2026
Department
21
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party
Next hearing
Dec 14, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$2,860

Parties

PlaintiffToyaka Limited
DefendantRand Akrey

Ruling

201600486824CUFR: Toyaka Limited vs Akrey 06/09/2026 in Department 21 CROSS-COMPLAINANT TOYAKA LIMITED MOTIONS TO COMPEL CROSS-DEFENDANT RAND AKREYS RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS UP TO AND INCLUDING DISCRETIONARY DISMISSAL; CROSS-COMPLAINANT TOYAKA LIMITED MOTION TO DEEM FACTS ADMITTED AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS UP TO AND INCLUDING DISCRETIONARY DISMISSAL

Tentative Rulings. Parties and counsel appearing for oral argument should address the tentative decision. Parties may submit on the tentative decision by email, with a copy to all other parties in the matter, to courtroom21@ventura.courts.ca.gov before 8:00 a.m. on the day set for the hearing, with a subject line that includes “SUBMISSION ON TENTATIVE”, Case Number, Title and Party. If fewer than all parties submit on the tentative, the hearing will proceed, and the tentative ruling is subject to change. The clerk cannot advise if you should still appear or not. The decision of whether to appear for a hearing is to be made by the parties and their counsel. (Dept. 21 Rules & Procedures, p. 4, § II.I.)

The following is a statement of the Court’s tentative ruling. The Court may adopt, modify or reject the tentative ruling after hearing. The tentative ruling has no legal effect unless and until adopted by the Court.

Motions:

(1) Cross-Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories; (2) Cross-Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories; (3) Cross-Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production; and (4) Cross-Defendant’s Motion to Deem the Truth of the Matters in Requests for Admission Admitted

Tentative Ruling:

1. Counsel for Cross-Defendant is admonished for failing to file these motions as three separate motions, paying a separate filing fee for each motion. The Court exercises its discretion to allow the motions to proceed, but counsel is admonished to file these as separate motions in the future.

2. Cross-Defendant’s motions to compel are GRANTED. Cross-Complainant was served with the discovery requested but failed to respond. Cross-Defendant Rand Akrey is ordered to provide code compliant verified responses to Form Interrogatories, Special

201600486824CUFR: Toyaka Limited vs Akrey

Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents, without objection no later than June 30, 2026.

3. Cross-Defendant’s motion to Deem the Truth of the Matters in the Requests for Admissions Admitted is GRANTED.

4. Cross-Defendant’s request for sanction related to all four motions is GRANTED in FULL in the amount of $2,860, to be paid by Cross-Complainant Rand Akrey by June 30, 2026.

5. Cross-Defendant’s requests for dismissal are DENIED.

6. Cross-Defendant’s request to continue to the trial date is GRANTED. The 6/29/26 trial is continued to 12/14/26 at 1:30 p.m., with a 7-day estimate.

Counsel for cross-defendant is to give notice within 5 court days.

2

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share