Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
34-2023-00333705-CU-BC-GDS: Naeim Zamani Mahfroujaki, individually, and as a derivative action vs. Zoom, Inc., a California corporation 12/06/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses Special, Production, Admissions in Department 53
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE: Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure: To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below.
If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court. Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.
The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED. 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.
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?”
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.
34-2023-00333705-CU-BC-GDS: Naeim Zamani Mahfroujaki, individually, and as a derivative action vs. Zoom, Inc., a California corporation 12/06/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses Special, Production, Admissions in Department 53
TENTATIVE RULING: Cross-Defendant Naeim Zamani Mahfroujakis motion to compel Cross-Complainant Armani Financial Group, Inc.s further responses to discovery is granted.
By way of the instant omnibus motion, Cross-Defendant moves to compel Cross-Complainants further responses to his special interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production. The moving papers consist of a two page memorandum of points and authorities which does not discuss the discovery in any manner and instead refers the Court to a 108 page separate statement which Cross-Defendant apparently expected the Court to sift through in an attempt to determine not only what specific discovery requests are at issue, but also why the responses to those requests were deficient.
Cross-Complainant filed a 3 page opposition memorandum and a 116 page response to the separate statement. Cross-Complainants opposition memorandum also did not in any manner identify any specific discovery request or why any response was sufficient. Like Cross-Defendant, it also appears Cross-Complainant simply expected the Court to scour the separate statement to identify what is at issue on this motion. The Court lacks the judicial resources to attempt to review the parties competing voluminous separate statements.
Nevertheless, while Cross-Complainant filed an opposition to the instant motion, the sole argument interposed to the motion is simply that the motion is moot because it served further responses since the motion was filed. The authority cited by Cross-Complainant involves a scenario where untimely responses are served after a motion to compel responses was filed, not after a motion to compel further responses was filed. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409-410.) Service of further responses after the motion was filed and prior to the hearing does not moot the motion. A motion is made when it is filed and served. (CCP § 1005.5.) The content of any further responses served after the motion was filed is not before the Court.
As a result, the motion is granted. No later than December 20, 2023, Cross-Complainant shall serve further, verified responses to Cross-Defendants special interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production, as requested in the moving papers. To the extent that the further responses served after the motion was filed comply with this ruling, they need not be reserved.
Cross-Defendants request for $11,600 (increased to almost $15,000 in reply) in monetary sanctions for is denied. The motion was essentially unopposed on the merits and in any event, the Court finds that the sanctions would be unjust under the circumstances, especially given the state of the moving papers filed by Cross-Defendant discussed above.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2023-00333705-CU-BC-GDS: Naeim Zamani Mahfroujaki, individually, and as a derivative action vs. Zoom, Inc., a California corporation 12/06/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses Special, Production, Admissions in Department 53
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.