Motion to Compel Response to Special Interrogatories, Set One; Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Production, Set Two
Horn (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 206,228 [challenge to judicial notice motion forfeited by failure to file opposition].)
*** *** ***
15. Avila v. California Premier Roofscapes, Inc., et al, Case No. CIVSB2425309 Defendants’ Motion to Compel Response to Special Interrogatories, Set One Defendants’ Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Production, Set Two 6/8/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17 The Court would find the motions MOOT. Consistent with the prior discovery rulings the week prior: Substantive, supplemental responses have been provided and the motions are now moot. As to sanctions, the Court would decline to impose them. It appears that there is substantial justification in that Plaintiff sought extension of the deadline before providing objection-only responses and was intent on providing substantive responses.
Moreover, the Court notes that no separate statements were provided. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(2) & (3) [requiring separate statement when compelling further responses].) Here, it appears that movants moved as if there had been no prior responses. While the initial responses were couched as objection-only, they still existed.
*** *** ***
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?”