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.

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

Other rulings by John Tomberlin Judge John Tomberlin dossier Other Motion for Reconsideration in SONOMA All SONOMA County rulings Other Motion for Reconsideration cases Other denied rulings in SONOMA

Related rulings

by semantic similarity

Source

Print-friendly view

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.

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

February 25, 2026. On that date, the court continued the hearing to allow defendant Amerigo, LLC, to obtain counsel and to file proof of service of this motion on Plaintiff. Defendants are now both represented by Michael Danner. Douglas Provencher has substituted in as counsel for Plaintiff.

2. Motion to Reconsider Motion to Set Aside As noted above, this motion was continued to this calendar for two reasons. The first was to allow Amerigo, LLC to obtain counsel, which it has done. The second was to file proof of service of the motion on the Plaintiff. As of the time the court reviewed this matter, proof of service had not been filed. Regardless, in reviewing the motion itself, Defendants have only provided argument— none of which complies with the requirements of Civil Code of Procedure section 1008, as Defendants do not present any new or different facts, circumstances, or law. In addition, Defendants have not provided evidence supporting their position.

3. Conclusion and Order The motion is DENIED. Due to the lack of opposition, the court’s minute order shall constitute the order of the court.

3. 24CV07661, Clark v. Singh

This matter is on calendar for the motion of Plaintiff Gregory M. Clark (“Plaintiff”) to (1) deem Plaintiff’s first set of Requests for Admissions (“RFA”), served on Defendants Harjit Singh and RJ 13, Inc. (“Defendants”) admitted or, in the alternative, to require Defendants to provide a response; and, (2) to require Defendants provide a response to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $2,600.

1. Original Motion, Continuance, and additional requests This motion was initially heard on February 25, 2026. The court continued the matter to this calendar to allow Plaintiff to provide crucial missing evidence supporting the motion. Unbeknownst to the court, Defendants filed an untimely opposition to the motion on February 23, 2026, indicating discovery had been served. Defendants state verified responses to the Requests for Admission and Form Interrogatories were served on February 20, 2026. (Miller decl., ¶7.)

Despite receiving responses to Plaintiff’s RFA, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One, on June 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed a document titled Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Discovery and for Monetary Sanctions against Defendants containing a hearing date for this calendar. The Notice of Motion indicates Plaintiff’s request relates to RFA, Set One, and Plaintiff’s first set of form interrogatories. However, it also includes RFA, Set Two, and RFA, Set Three. Plaintiff acknowledges receipt of responses to form interrogatories; although he states they are “incomplete” apparently because they contain objections. (Clark decl., ¶25.)

Plaintiff states he received responses to his RFA, Set One, and RFA, Set Two. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s counsel states no response has been received to RFA, Set Three. However, RFA, Set Three, was not part of the original motion on calendar. Therefore, this court will not address that issue.

2. Sanctions Plaintiff requests sanctions for having to bring the motion. The original motion sought fees in the amount of $2,600. Plaintiff’s counsel states his regular hourly rate is $650. Despite that it was Plaintiff’s counsel’s failure to provide sufficient evidentiary support which caused this motion to be continued, Plaintiff requests an additional $1,300 for the supplemental filing, for a total of $3,900. Review of the motion does not support the amount requested. In opposition, Defendants’ counsel states the failure to serve timely responses was due to counsel’s inability to maintain consistent communication with Defendants. (Miller decl., ¶4.) This 3