Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and for Sanctions
9:00 23CV416999 Vidushi Savant Order on Defendants’ Motion to 3 v. Strike Plaintiff’s Second Amended Vikas Kedia, et al. Complaint
See Line 2 below for complete tentative ruling on both the Demurrer and Motion to Strike.
After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal Order.
9:00 24CV432259 Anna Aleman Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to 4 v. Compel Defendant R-C Interstate Amazon Logistics, Inc., et al. Corp. to produce further responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One
See Line 4 below for complete tentative ruling.
After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal Order.
9:00 24CV451521 Elizabeth Dawkins Order on Defendant’s Motion 5 v. to Compel Responses to Annabelle A. Alday, et al Interrogatories, to Deem Requests for Admissions, Set One, Admitted, and for Sanctions
See Line 5 below for complete tentative ruling.
After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal Order.
Line 5 Case Name: Elizabeth Dawkins v. Annabelle A. Alday, et al. Case No.: 24CV451521 Defendant Annabelle Alday (“Defendant”) moves under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2023.010, 2023.020, 2030.300(d), and 2033.280:
(1) to compel Plaintiff Elizabeth Dawkins (“Plaintiff”) to provide verified Code- Compliant responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and Special Interrogatories, Set One; (2) to deem all matters specified in the Requests for Admissions, Set One, admitted by Plaintiff; and (3) for a monetary sanction against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,819.17 for Defendant’s reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred for this Motion.
Notice of Motion (the “Motion”) at 1:25-2:4 (filed: Dec. 8, 2025).
The Motion came on for hearing on July 8, 2026, at 9:00 AM in Department 16. After reviewing all the papers and the record, and giving counsel for all parties the full and fair opportunity to be heard, the Court finds and rules as follows.
On August 28, 2025, Defendant served these Code-Compliant discovery requests on Plaintiff:
• Form Interrogatories, Set Two; • Special Interrogatories, Set One; and • Request for Admissions, Set One (“RFAs”).
Declaration of attorney Joshua R. Jachimowicz (the “Jachimowicz Decl.”) In Support of Motion at ¶¶ 4-6 (filed: Dec. 8, 2025).
Under California law, Plaintiff has a clear duty to provide verified Code-Compliant responses to these discovery requests. C.C.P. §§ 2030.210, 2030.220, 2033.210, 2033.240, and 2033.250. The deadline for those responses was September 30, 2025.
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?”
Despite that clear duty, Plaintiff never provided any responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and the Special Interrogatories, Set One. Jachimowicz Decl. at ¶ 12.
Regarding the RFAs, while Plaintiff provided an un-verified response to the RFAs
on October 31, 2025, Plaintiff never provided a verified Code-Complaint response to the RFAs despite Plaintiff’s clear duty to do so. Jachimowicz Decl at ¶¶7-10 at Exhibits 7 & 8 thereto. Under California law, “[u]nsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” Appleton v. Superior Court, 206 Cal. App. 3d 632, 636 (1988).
Now, more than nine months after the deadline expired for Plaintiff to respond to these discovery requests, Plaintiff never provided verified Code-Compliant responses to any of them. Jachimowicz Decl at ¶¶7-10, 12.
Hence, because it is undisputed that—
(1) Plaintiff never provided verified Code-Compliant responses to these discovery requests, and
(2) the September 30, 2025 deadline for Plaintiff to respond had long expired,
—it follows as a matter of logic and law that Defendant was justified in filing this Motion against Plaintiff on December 8, 2025, to compel Plaintiff to provide verified Code- Compliant responses to the Form and Special Interrogatories, which the Court will now compel Plaintiff to do within 30 days from today.
Moreover, because Plaintiff failed to provide verified Code-Complaint responses to the RFAs, Defendant in this Motion also seeks an Order under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.280 deeming admitted by Plaintiff the truth of all matters specified in the RFAs. C.C.P. § 2033.280(b) & (c).
Moreover, for Plaintiff’s misuse of the discovery process under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2023.010(d) by failing to provide verified-Code Compliant responses to these discovery requests, Defendant moves for a monetary sanction against Plaintiff of $1,819.17 under Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2023.030 for Defendant’s reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred for bringing this Motion. C.C.P. § 2023.030.
Defendant’s request in this Motion for a $1,819.17 sanction is well supported by the attorney hourly rates and number of attorney hours spent on this Motion, which are well detailed in the Jachimowicz Declaration at ¶¶3, 13, and 14, and which the Court in the broad exercise of its discretion now finds are reasonable in all respects. So Plaintiff will pay Defendant $1,819.17 as a sanction within 30 days from today.
In sum, the Motion is well supported by the law, well supported by the facts set forth in the Jachimowicz Declaration, and reasonable in all respects.
Plaintiff does not argue otherwise. Indeed, Plaintiff has not opposed this Motion at all, which the Court views as Plaintiff conceding the Motion. D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4.; California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial ¶ 9:105.10, Ch. 9 at pp. 94-95 (failure to file opposition papers to motion is treated “as an admission that the motion is meritorious”) (Weil & Brown, The Rutter Group, 2025 Ed.); see also Rule of Court 8.54(c): “A failure to oppose a motion may be
deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.” CRC Rule 8.54(c).)
Hence, the Motion is GRANTED.
Conclusion & Order
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion in its entirety. Specifically, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The truth of each matter specified in the Request for Admissions, Set One, served on Plaintiff Elizabeth Dawkins on August 28, 2025, is now deemed admitted by Plaintiff Elizabeth Dawkins. And
2. Within 30 days from today, Plaintiff Elizabeth Dawkins will provide verified Code-Compliant responses to the Form Interrogatories, Set Two, and the Special Interrogatories, Set One, served on Plaintiff Elizabeth Dawkins on August 28, 2025. And
3. Within 30 days from today, Plaintiff Elizabeth Dawkins will pay $1,819.17 to Defendant Annabelle Alday as a monetary sanction for Defendant’s reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred for this Motion.
Moreover, Plaintiff Elizabeth Dawkins is put on NOTICE that failure to comply with this Order in all respects within 30 days from today may subject Plaintiff Elizabeth Dawkins to further escalating monetary and non-monetary sanctions including, but not limited to, issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions.
SO ORDERED.
Date: July 8, 2026 Hon. Vincent I. Parrett Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara
40