PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al.

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 Court’s 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

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Five in Department 25

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 Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

****NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT WILL MOVE TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION*****

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant in pro per Joseph Sherrill’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Five, from Plaintiff Joseph Padilla (“Plaintiff”) is ruled upon as follows.

This matter was previously continued from March 18, 2026 to permit the parties to file supplemental briefing on the issue of Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to sign the at issue discovery responses, as is required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.250(c).

Defendant filed his supplemental briefing on March 18, 2026. Plaintiff filed his response briefing on April 1, 2026.

To the extent that the parties’ supplemental briefing includes argument as to other issues not pertaining to the signing of discovery responses, the Court will disregard any discussion not directly connected to the Court’s March 18, 2026 order permitting supplemental briefing.

Factual Background

In this action, Plaintiff alleges causes of action against Defendant for breach of lease, negligence, intentional interference with contractual relations, harassment, and defamation.

Defendant served the at issue interrogatories on September 15, 2025. (Sherrill Decl., ¶

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Five in Department 25

2.) Plaintiff served responses on October 21, 2025. (Sherrill Decl., ¶ 5.)

Defendant now moves to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set four, nos. 29-35. Plaintiff opposes.

Discussion

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s responses were not signed by Plaintiff’s counsel, contain improper boilerplate objections, contain evasive answers, and are not code compliant. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that each of his responses are proper and the motion should be denied in its entirety.

Counsel’s Failure to Sign Responses

Defendant, in his supplemental briefing cites to Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657-658, which the Court finds informative here:

Only one case, Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 339 [248 Cal.Rptr. 346] (review den.), has considered the issue of whether objections to a discovery request made pursuant to section 2031 must be verified if the party also makes other responses to the request. Although Blue Ridge dealt with a prior version of the statutory scheme, we believe its analysis is instructive.

In Blue Ridge, the defendant, responding to a request for production of documents, filed a timely but unverified response asserting the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine as to some of the requested documents but agreeing to produce the documents which were not privileged. The plaintiffs moved to compel production of all of the documents. Plaintiffs claimed that because defendant's response had not been verified, the response was untimely, thereby entitling them to receive all of the documents without objection. The trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion, triggering a defense writ to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal addressed the issue of whether objections had to be verified. The court noted that the statute then in effect was less than clear on the point—unlike the present subdivision (g) of section 2031, which explicitly states a response containing only objections need not be verified—but concluded that there was no statutory requirement that the objections be verified to be

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Five in Department 25

preserved. Then, in an analysis directly on point with this case, the court noted that the defendant's “response did not consist solely of objections, but was a 'hybrid' of objections and other statements.... The provision that a response consisting solely of objections need not be verified confirms that an objection in an unverified 'hybrid' response is nonetheless effective. The verification requirement for a response which contains matter other than objections operates to support the other statements in the response.

The objections themselves do not require a verification in order to be preserved. [¶] Although both former and present section 2031 require that a response be verified, we conclude that under both versions objections to a production request are effective even though the response is unverified. The statutes reflect the recognition that objections are legal conclusions interposed by counsel, not factual assertions by a party, making their verification unnecessary.” (Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at pp. 344-345, italics in original.)

Plaintiff urges that Blue Ridge cannot govern disposition of this cause because the opinion did not consider the effect of the 1986 amendment to section 2031 adding subdivision (k).2 That subdivision provides that failure to file a timely response to an inspection demand results in a waiver of “any objection to the demand, including one based upon privilege or on the protection for work product ....” Essentially, plaintiff argues that failure to verify the response results in an untimely response, thereby creating a waiver of any objection, including privilege.

The argument misses the mark because it fails to confront the key issue: if a party files a response containing objections and specific responses, must that portion of the response containing the objections be verified in order to be considered timely? This takes us back to the issue considered and decided by the Blue Ridge court: is it necessary to verify objections in a hybrid response?3 We think not.

We believe subdivision (g) of section 2031 requires a party's fact-specific response to a demand for inspection to be made under oath in order to clearly establish the fact(s) set forth in the response. (See Steele v. Totah (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 545, 551 [225 Cal.Rptr. 635] [verification requirement in answers for requests for admissions propounded pursuant to § 2033].) The verified response is to be made by the party instead of counsel because the party, as the person or entity in possession, custody, or control of the requested document(s), has personal knowledge of the fact(s) asserted. In that way, were the party to take a different position at trial—e.g., produce a document it earlier claimed it did not possess—it can be impeached with its prior inconsistent statement.4

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Five in Department 25

In contrast, subdivision (g) of section 2031 specifically provides that a response containing “only objections” need not be signed by the party. The reason is clear. As Blue Ridge so cogently observed: “[O]bjections are legal conclusions interposed by counsel, not factual assertions by a party ....” (202 Cal.App.3d at p. 345.) That is, an objection is based upon counsel's legal analysis of the matter (e.g., the document is privileged) as compared to a response which is based upon a party's factual representation of the matter (e.g., the document does not exist).

There is absolutely no reason to require a party to verify an objection. It is sufficient to have the attorney sign the objection(s). If the attorney is wrong, the court will so decide after conducting the appropriate proceedings to determine if, for instance, the claim of privilege lies. Requiring the objection to be verified by the party would add nothing to the trial court's analysis.

(Id., at pp. 655-657 [italic emphasis original, underline emphasis added].)

While not directly on point, the Court in Food 4 Less explains how the signature of the attorney essentially acts as a verification of the objections made in response to discovery requests.

In his supplemental briefing, Plaintiff cites to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.250, 2030.290, and 2030.300 for the proposition that the legislature did not intend for a failure of counsel to sign discovery responses to constitute a failure to respond, as occurs where a party fails to verify substantive responses pursuant to section 2030.290. Plaintiff cites to no caselaw in support of this argument. The Court notes that the waiver of objections as the result of a failure to verify comes from caselaw, not the statutory language of section 2030.250. (See Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-636 [“Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.”].)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.250 states, in relevant part:

(a) The party to whom the interrogatories are directed shall sign the response under oath unless the response contains only objections.

(c) The attorney for the responding party shall sign any responses that contain an objection.

Given that section 2030.250 makes no clear distinction between the required signature of a party for responses that do not contain only objections and the required signature of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Five in Department 25

counsel for responses which contain an objection, the Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s reliance only on statutory authority.

Food 4 Less appears to be instructive here, as the Court found that the signature of counsel serves to essentially verify the objections to each request. (Food 4 Less, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at p. 657.) As such attorney verification is missing, such responses are “tantamount to no [objections] at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at pp. 635-636.)

Therefore, as Plaintiff’s counsel failed to sign the responses, Plaintiff’s objections are deemed waived.

Interrogatories at Issue

Interrogatories “Concerning the Formation, Capitalization, Ownership Percentages, and Internal Financial Arrangements of Unleashed Precision Engines, LLC”

Interrogatory No. 29: Provide the date and specific details between YOU (dba Precision Machine & Engine) and Gerald Apodaca Jr. (dba Unleashed Power) that led to the sale/partnership of both parties.

Plaintiff responded:

Objection. Vague, overbroad, and irrelevant; seeks information concerning events months after Responding Party’s tenancy ended. Without waiving objections, Responding Party states that discussions with Gerald Apodaca about forming Unleashed Precision Engines, LLC began around June 2025 and were finalized in August 2025. No sale or transfer of equipment or ownership occurred between them relating to the matters in this lawsuit.

Interrogatory No. 30: Provide the specific partnership details as to each party’s role and percentage of ownership between YOU and Gerald Apodaca Jr. (dba Unleashed Power) and any other persons with a partnership stake in Unleashed Precision Engines, LLC.

Plaintiff responded:

Objection. Overbroad, irrelevant, and seeks private business information

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Five in Department 25

regarding events occurring after the tenancy. Without waiving objections, Responding Party states that he and Gerald Apodaca each retain ownership of their own tools and equipment and work cooperatively through Unleashed Precision Engines, LLC. There was no transfer of ownership between them. The company has no relation to Defendant Sherrill or the subject property.

Interrogatory No. 31: Provide the specific details of the financial arrangement with ownership percentages and dollar amount investment of each partner/owner in Unleashed Precision Engines, LLC.

Plaintiff responded:

Objection. Irrelevant, overbroad, and invasive of privacy; seeks post-tenancy financial information unrelated to this action. Without waiving objections, Responding Party states that no funds, assets, or property connected to Defendant Sherrill or the subject property were contributed to Unleashed Precision Engines, LLC. Any investment was unrelated to this lawsuit.

Interrogatory No. 34: Provide the specific details as to each party with current percentage of ownership in Precision Machine & Engine and their current ownership percentage in Unleashed Precision Engines, LLC.

Plaintiff responded:

Objection. Irrelevant and invasive of financial privacy. Without waiving objections, Responding Party states he is the sole owner of Precision Machine & Engine. Defendant Sherrill has no ownership or financial interest in Precision Machine & Engine or Unleashed Precision Engines, LLC.

Interrogatory No. 35: Provide detailed information pertaining to each email address, social-media site, and online presence associated with YOU and/or any partner of Unleashed Precision Engines, LLC prior to and after the entity was formed.

Plaintiff responded:

Objection. Overbroad, irrelevant, and harassing; seeks private account information having no bearing on any claim or defense. Without waiving objections, any online presence associated with Unleashed Precision Engines, LLC was created after August 2025 and has no connection to Defendant Sherrill,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Five in Department 25

the prior tenancy, or the subject property.

Plaintiff argues that each of these interrogatories are not relevant because Plaintiff “has not transferred, sold, or contributed any equipment subject to the Lease/Purchase Agreement to Unleashed Precision Engines, LLC or to any other entity.” (Opp., pp. 2:27-3:3.) Plaintiff further argues that “[b]ecause there has been no transfer or disposition of any equipment allegedly subject to Defendant’s claimed security interest, the internal structure and financial details of the subsequently formed LLC have no bearing on the issues in dispute and fall outside the permissible scope of discovery under Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010.” (Opp., p. 3:3-8.) Defendant argues that because the interrogatories are relevant “to Defendant’s cross-claims regarding contractual obligations and equipment disposition, as the ownership/partnership appears to involve assets tied to the contract.”

Information is relevant “if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating its case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement. [citations omitted] Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.” (Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611-1612 [emphasis in original].) “Any doubts regarding relevance are generally resolved in favor of allowing the discovery.” (Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98.)

The Court notes that while Plaintiff’s objections have been deemed waived, interrogatories are still required to be relevant. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.030(a)(1) [“A party may propound to another party either or both of the following: (1) Thirty-five specially prepared interrogatories that are relevant to the subject matter of the pending action.”].)

Defendant’s cross-complaint brings claims against Plaintiff as an individual and dba Precision Machine & Engine. The subject agreement referenced in the cross-complaint references Precision Machine & Engine, not Unleashed Precision Engines, LLC. Neither party explains the connection between Precision Machine & Engine and Unleashed Precision Engines, LLC. Further, neither the operative first amended complaint, nor the cross-complaint include Unleashed Precision Engines, LLC as a party.

The Court is not persuaded that Defendant has established relevance for interrogatories relating to Unleashed Precision Engines, LLC. It is unclear to the Court the extent to which Unleashed Precision Engines, LLC is involved in the contract between the parties, if at all, or why information pertaining to Unleashed Precision Engines, LLC’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Five in Department 25

formation and operation is relevant to the instant matter.

Therefore, the motion to compel further responses is DENIED as to interrogatories nos. 29, 30, 31, 34, and 35.

Other Interrogatories

Interrogatory No. 32: Provide the specific details of who is the current owner and the present location of each piece of machine shop equipment inventoried in the CONTRACT that YOU moved from 3100 Elkhorn Blvd., North Highlands, CA 95660 prior to November 1, 2023.

Plaintiff responded:

Objection. Overbroad, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant; seeks proprietary business information unrelated to this case. Without waiving objections, all equipment moved from 3100 Elkhorn Blvd. was owned by Responding Party. No equipment belonging to Defendant Sherrill was retained. Responding Party does not maintain a written list correlating each item to a custodian; the equipment remains in his possession or use. No equipment owned by Defendant Sherrill remains in Plaintiff’s possession, nor was any retained, altered, or disposed of.

Interrogatory No. 33: For each piece of machine shop equipment inventoried in the CONTRACT that is not in YOUR current possession, provide the specific details and contact information as to who has it, when they acquired it, and the amount or value YOU received from the PERSON or entity.

Plaintiff responded:

Objection. Overbroad, irrelevant, and unduly burdensome; seeks proprietary and financial details about unrelated business equipment. Without waiving objections, any equipment sold or transferred was done in the ordinary course of business unrelated to Defendant Sherrill or the subject property. No Defendant-owned property was retained or sold. No equipment owned by Defendant Sherrill remains in Plaintiff’s possession, nor was any retained, altered, disposed of.

Plaintiff argues that these requests are not reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, as “The equipment remains in Plaintiff’s possession. Because there has been no transfer or disposition of any equipment allegedly subject to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 04/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Five in Department 25

Defendant’s claimed security interest, the internal structure and financial details of the subsequently formed LLC have no bearing on the issues in dispute and fall outside the permissible scope of discovery under Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010.” (Opp., p. 3:3-8.)

As this argument directly contradicts Plaintiff’s responses to special interrogatories nos. 32 and 33, and because the location and possession of the property is pertinent to the matters raised in Plaintiff’s complaint and Defendant’s cross-complaint, the Court finds these requests to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED as to special interrogatories nos. 32 and 33.

Sanctions

Given the mixed result, Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Disposition

Defendant’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED as to interrogatories nos. 29, 30, 31, 34, and 35; and GRANTED as to interrogatories nos. 32 and 33.

Plaintiff shall serve verified amended responses by no later than April 15, 2026.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.