| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Melissa Groze to Respond to Form Interrogatories – General, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions
Judge Mosbarger – Law & Motion – Wednesday, April 22, 2026 @ 9:00 AM TENTATIVE RULINGS
1. 23CV00692 HINOJOSA, ISAIAH V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY ET AL EVENT: Cross-Defendant Teichert, Inc.’s Demurrer to Defendant/Cross-Complainant County of Butte’s Cross-Complaint On the Court’s own motion, this matter is continued to April 29, 2026 at 9:00 a.m.
2. 23CV02211 HOWELL, GREG V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY ET AL EVENT: Ford Motor Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment “Because it is potentially case dispositive and usually requires considerable time and effort to prepare, a summary judgment motion is perhaps the most important pretrial motion in a civil case. Therefore, the Legislature was entitled to conclude that parties should be afforded a minimum notice period for the hearing of summary judgment motions so that they have sufficient time to assembly the relevant evidence and prepare an adequate opposition.” Robinson v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1262.
Trial courts do not have authority to shorten the minimum notice period without the parties’ consent. Ibid.; accord Urshan v. Musicians’ Credit Union (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 758, 760; McMahon v. Superior Court (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 112, 117-118.
Therefore, to afford Plaintiff the statutorily prescribed time period to prepare and file an Opposition, this matter is continued to July 22, 2026 at 9:00 a.m.
3. 25CV00691 DOE 1, JANE V. GROZE, MELISSA ET AL EVENT: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Melissa Groze to Respond to Form Interrogatories – General, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One; Request for Monetary Sanctions The failure to provide verified responses is tantamount to no response at all, and Defendant failing to provide timely responses has waived her objections. Code of Civil Procedure §§2030.290(a), 2031.300(a); and see, e.g., Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403-404
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?”
While subsequently serving responses may be cause for relief from application of this waiver, it is required that such subsequent responses be “in substantial compliance” with the statutory provisions governing the form and content of the response.
Here, the Court finds that the responses to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – General, Set One, and Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, filed with the Court on March 26, 2026, are not in substantial compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Motion is granted, and Defendant Melissa Groze is ordered to provide substantive verified responses without objection to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories – General, Set One, and Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One within 14 days’ of the hearing on this Motion.
Monetary sanctions are issued against Defendant Melissa Groze in the amount of $1,700.
These sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff within thirty (30) business days of the hearing on this Motion.
Counsel for the Plaintiff shall submit a form of order within two weeks. 1