Edwards v. GS Freight, Inc., et al.

(49) Tentative Ruling

Re: Edwards v. GS Freight, Inc., et al. Superior Court Case No. 24CECG05021

Hearing Date: June 25, 2026 (Dept. 502)

Motion: 1) By Truezhay Edwards to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents and Things, Set One, from Defendant Navdeep Singh Goraya and Request for Sanctions 2) By Truezhay Edwards to Request for Admissions Deemed Admitted and Request for Sanctions 3) By Mary Carter to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents and Things, Set One, from Defendant Navdeep Singh Goraya and Request for Sanctions 4) By Mary Carter to Request for Admissions Deemed Admitted and Request for Sanctions

If oral argument is timely requested, it will be entertained on Wednesday, July 8, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 502.

Tentative Ruling:

To deny and find moot plaintiffs Truezhay Edwards and Mary Carter’s motions to compel defendant Navdeep Singh Goraya’s responses to From Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents and Things, Set One, and the requests for admissions to be deemed admitted, as it appears responses have been served.

To grant plaintiffs Truezhay Edwards and Mary Carter’s motions to compel defendant Navdeep Singh Goraya’s responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One. Defendant Navdeep Singh Goraya is ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, within 15 days of the clerk’s service of the minute order.

To impose monetary sanctions in favor of plaintiffs Truezhay Edwards and Mary Carter and against defendant Navdeep Singh Goraya. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).) Defendant Navdeep Singh Goraya is ordered to pay $750 in sanctions to B&D Law Group, APLC, within 30 days of the clerk’s service of the minute order.

Explanation:

Plaintiffs Truezhay Edwards and Mary Carter (“Plaintiffs”) move to compel responses from defendant Navdeep Singh Goraya (“Defendant”) to Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”), Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”), and Request 11

for Production of Documents and Things, Set One (“RFPD”). Plaintiffs additionally move to request for admissions to be deemed admitted (“Admissions”).

On July 10, 2025, Plaintiffs served FROG, SROG, RFPD, and Admissions on Defendant. (Renge Decl. ISO FROG, ¶ 2; Renge Decl. ISO SROG, ¶ 2; Renge Decl. ISO RFPD, ¶ 2; Renge Decl. ISO Admissions, ¶ 2.) On March 11, 2026, Plaintiffs filed the present motions. On June 9, 2026, Defendant served responses to FROG, RFPD, and Admissions. (Rutherford Decl. ISO Opposition to FROG, ¶ 7; Rutherford Decl. ISO Opposition to RFPD, ¶ 7; Rutherford Decl. ISO Opposition to Admissions, ¶ 7.)

Form Interrogatories, Set One, Request for Production of Documents and Things, Set One, and Request for Admissions to be Deemed Admitted

Responses by Defendant to FROG, RFPD, and Admissions have been served on Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the motions to compel responses to FROG and RFPD, and to deem admissions admitted are denied as moot.

Special Interrogatories, Set One

Defendant argues Plaintiffs never served Defendant with SROG. Defendant points to the email serving discovery on Defendant from Plaintiffs. The email does not include any attachments entitled SROG or mention special interrogatories. (Rutherford Decl. ISO Opposition to SROG, ¶ 4 and Exh. A.) However, Plaintiffs served SROG by attaching the SROG questions to the end of the form interrogatories document. (Renge Decl. ISO SROG, Exh. A.) Defendant was served FROG which had SROG attached at the end of the same document. Therefore, Plaintiffs have served Defendant and were entitled to responses. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motions to compel responses to SROG are granted.

Sanctions

Plaintiffs are seeking sanctions in the amount of $810 per motion filed based on three hours of work by an attorney at $250 an hour and a $60 filing fee. Plaintiffs request thus totals to $6,480 in sanctions. Defendant argues the amount sought is excessive as the motions are repetitive with very similar information and facts. Further, Defendant argues Plaintiff is attempting to multiply one meet and confer time by the number of motions filed. Plaintiffs are also requesting to recover on a filing fee Plaintiffs did not pay. Plaintiffs have fee waivers on file and do not pay filing fees. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is granted but reduced. Defendant is ordered to pay $750 in reduced sanctions to B&D Law Group, APLC, within 30 days of the service of the minute order.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: lmg on 6-24-26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

12