Arredondo v. Saint Agnes Medical Center

(03) Tentative Ruling

Re: Arredondo v. Saint Agnes Medical Center Case No. 25CECG04529

Hearing Date: June 18, 2026 (Dept. 502)

Motion: Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Production (Set One), and Requests for Admission (Set One), and for Sanctions

If oral argument is timely requested, it will be entertained on Thursday, June 25, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 502.

Tentative Ruling:

To deny plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses to discovery, and her request for monetary sanctions against defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300; 2031.310; 2033.290.)

Explanation:

The court intends to deny plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses, as well as the request for sanctions. Plaintiff did not obtain leave of court before filing her motions to compel further responses, so the court will not hear their merits.

Under Fresno Superior Court Local Rules, rule 2.1.17 A, “No motion under sections 2017.010 through 2036.050, inclusive, of the California Code of Civil Procedure shall be heard in a civil unlimited case unless the moving party has first requested an informal Pretrial Discovery Conference with the Court and such request has either been denied and permission to file the motion is granted via court order...” (Emphasis added.) The rule applies to motions to compel further responses.

Here, plaintiff filed a request for a pretrial discovery conference with the court, and the court denied the request on February 9, 2026 for failure to adequately meet and confer on the dispute. (See Minute Order dated February 9, 2026.) However, the court did not expressly grant leave to file the motions to compel. The box that would allow plaintiff to file her motions was left blank. (Ibid.) Therefore, plaintiff did not receive permission from the court to bring her motions to compel further responses, and the motions are not properly before the court.

As a result, the court will not hear the merits of the motions. Instead, the court intends to deny the motions for failure to obtain leave to file them.

The court will also deny plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions, as plaintiff has not prevailed on the underlying motions to compel so there is no basis for a sanctions order. In addition, even if the motions had been granted, the court would still deny the request for sanctions because plaintiff is in pro per, and thus she is not entitled to recover attorney’s fees for her work done on the motions. (Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 292.) At most, if plaintiff had prevailed on her motions, she could recover her actual court 8 costs for filing the motions, not her attorney’s fees (since she has not incurred any such attorney’s fees). (Leiper v. Gallegos (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 284, 288.)

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 6-17-26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

9