Motion to compel compliance with Request for Production of Documents
TENTATIVE RULINGS LAW & MOTION CALENDAR Wednesday, July 8, 2026, 3:00 p.m. Courtroom 16 – Hon. John Tomberlin for Hon. Patrick M. Broderick 3035 Cleveland Avenue, Suite 200, Santa Rosa
TO JOIN “ZOOM” ONLINE, Courtroom 16 Meeting ID: 161-460-6380 Passcode: 840359 https://sonomacourt-org.zoomgov.com/j/1614606380?pwd=NUdpOEZ0RGxnVjBzNnN6dHZ6c0ZQZz09
TO JOIN “ZOOM” BY PHONE, By Phone (same meeting ID and password as listed above): (669) 254-5252 US (San Jose)
The following tentative rulings will become the ruling of the Court unless a party desires to be heard. If you desire to appear and present oral argument as to any motion, YOU MUST notify the Court by telephone at (707) 521-6725, and all other opposing parties of your intent to appear by 4:00 p.m. the court day immediately before the day of the hearing. Parties in motions for claims of exemption are exempt from this requirement.
PLEASE NOTE: The Court WILL NOT provide a court reporter for this calendar. If there are any concerns, please contact the Court at the number provided above.
1. 24CV04758, Sangiacomo v. State Farm General Insurance Company
Pursuant to CCP section 2031.320, Plaintiff Susan Sangiacomo (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant State Farm General Insurance Company (“State Farm”) to comply with its agreement to produce documents in response to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One.
1. Discovery Plaintiff served her first set of Request for Documents (RPDs) on State Farm on February 11, 2025. (Jacobellis decl., ¶2, Exhibit 1.) Plaintiff granted State Farm several extensions to respond. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s counsel states State Farm promised to produce its privilege log on May 14, 2025, but did not actually produce it until February 25, 2026. (Id., ¶3, Exhibit 2.) Thereafter, by letter dated March 2, 2026, Plaintiff’s counsel requested State Farm update its privilege log and produce documents Plaintiff’s counsel claimed were improperly withheld.
2. Timeliness State Farm argues this motion is untimely because notice of this motion was provided after the discovery cut-off date. Plaintiff asserts this motion is timely because CCP section 2031.320 does not fix a time limit on the motion. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action. (CCP 2024.020(a).) Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings. (CCP section 2024.020(b).) 1
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?”
Trial in this case was initially set for March 27, 2026. Therefore, all discovery motions should have been filed and served by February 25, 2026, and heard by March 12, 2026. Plaintiff’s motion was filed after the discovery cut-off date and is being heard after the initial trial date making it untimely. Plaintiff argues that there is no time limit on a motion to compel compliance. The case cited, Standon Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, dealt with the time for filing the motion. A motion to compel compliance is not subject to the same time limit to file a motion to compel a further response. Standon Co. did not address the discovery cut-off date.
3. Motion to reopen discovery – CCP section 2024.050 A trial court has discretion to hear a discovery motion after the discovery motion cutoff date, but the exercise of that discretion is governed by section 2024.050, which requires the court to consider various factors in determining whether to hear a discovery motion after the cutoff date. (Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1571.) CCP section 2024.050 requires the party seeking to reopen discovery to file a motion, which must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.
The parties did not agree to reopen discovery, and this motion was not brought pursuant to CCP section 2024.050. In reply, Plaintiff requests this court grant leave to have the motion concerning discovery heard closer to the initial trial date. New arguments and authority in reply are not proper. Plaintiff knew by May 15, 2025, that State Farm had not complied with its agreement to produce the privilege log. (See CCP section 2024.050(b)(2) [The court must consider the diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion.]) This motion should have been filed soon thereafter—not 10 months later.
4. Conclusion and Order The motion is DENIED as untimely. State Farm’s counsel is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling and in compliance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.
2. 24CV04975, Looney v. Amerigo, LLC.
Defendants Amerigo, LLC dba Kirway Express and Joseph Ismael (“Defendants”) filed a motion for reconsideration of this court’s order on Defendants’ motion to set aside the default judgment entered against them in this case. The motion is made on the grounds that Defendants were not properly served with summons and complaint.
1.
Procedural History
Default judgment was entered in this case on December 10, 2024. On January 28, 2025, Defendants filed a Motion to Set Aside the Default Judgment. The hearing on that motion was set for April 30, 2025. On that date, this court continued the matter because defendant Amerigo, LLC, was unrepresented. Defendant Ismael had filed the motion in pro per on behalf of himself and the LLC; however, defendant Ismael is not an attorney and may not represent an LLC. As a result, the hearing was continued to August 20, 2025.
On August 20, 2025, this court denied the Motion to Set Aside the Default Judgment as proof of service of the Motion on Plaintiff Gary E. Looney had not been filed and no additional documents had been filed substituting in an attorney to represent Amerigo, LLC. On October 20, 2025, defendant Joseph Ismael filed this Motion for Reconsideration of the August 20, 2025, order on behalf of himself and defendant Amerigo, LLC. The hearing was set for
2