DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CIVSB2304230·sanbernardino·Civil·Discovery
Hearing 2 months agoGRANTED in its entirety; Sanctions granted in part and denied in part

Sager vs. New Life Venture et al

Motion to Compel Form Interrogatories; Motion to Compel Special Interrogatories; Motion to Compel Demand for Production; Motion to Deem Request for Admissions; Request for Monetary Sanctions

Hearing date
Jun 16, 2026
Department
S37
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$1,400$375$240$1,740.00

Parties

PlaintiffGlynis Karen Sager individually dba G-Book & Tax Service
DefendantNew Life Venture Corp

Attorneys

N. Joe Inumerable(Law Offices of N. Joe Inumerable)for Plaintiff

Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING(S) FOR June 16, 2026 Department S37 – Judge Winston Keh This court follows California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(b) for tentative rulings. (See San Bernardino Superior Court Local Emergency Rule 8.) Tentative rulings for each law & motion will be posted on the internet (https://www.sb-court.org) by 3:00 p.m. on the court day immediately before the hearing.

You may appear in person at the hearing although remote appearance by CourtCall is preferred. (See www.sb-court.org/general-information/remote-access).

If you do not have Internet access or if you experience difficulty with the posted tentative ruling, you may obtain the tentative ruling by calling the department (S-37) at (909) 708-8707 or the Administrative Assistant (909) 708-8756, who prepared the ruling.

If you (or both parties) wish to submit on the Tentative, notify the other party and call the department by 4:00 pm the day before and your appearance may be excused unless the Court orders you to appear.

You must appear at the hearing if you are so directed by the court in the tentative ruling. Be prepared to address those issues set forth by the court in its ruling.

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE PREVAILING PARTY IS TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE

RULING.

Sager vs. New Life Venture et al

__________________________________________________________________________

TENTATIVE RULING(S):

Defendant New Life Venture Corp’s Discovery Motions:

1. Defendant New Life Venture Corp’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Glynis Karen Sager

individually dba G-Book & Tax Service to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set No. One

– GRANTED in its entirety. Plaintiff shall provide code-compliant verified responses on or

before June 26, 2026 without objections. All objections are waived including those based

on attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.

2. Defendant New Life Venture Corp’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Glynis Karen Sager

individually dba G-Book & Tax Service to Respond to Special Interrogatories, Set No.

One – GRANTED in its entirety. Plaintiff shall provide code-compliant verified responses

on or before June 26, 2026 without objections. All objections are waived including those

based on attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.

3. Defendant New Life Venture Corp’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Glynis Karen Sager

individually dba G-Book & Tax Service to Respond to Demand for Production and

Inspection of Documents, Set No. One – GRANTED in its entirety. Plaintiff shall provide

code-compliant verified responses on or before June 26, 2026 without objections. All

objections are waived including those based on attorney-client privilege and attorney

work product doctrine.

4. Defendant New Life Venture Corp’s Motion to Deem Request for Admissions against

Plaintiff Glynis Karen Sager individually dba G-Book & Tax Service, Set No. One –

GRANTED in its entirety.

5. Defendant New Life Venture Corp’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is Granted in part

and Denied in part as follows: $1,400 (4 hours of attorney’s time at $375 per hour) + $240

in filing fees for 4 motions = $1,740.00. Sanctions are ordered against Plaintiff Glynis

Karen Sager and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Law Offices of N. Joe Inumerable, joint and

several, due to Defendant’s counsel for record on or before June 19, 2026.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share