Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses for Production of Documents; Motion for Sanctions
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
9:00 24CV448840 Skanska-Shimmick-Herzog Order on Cross-Defendant Anil 2 v. Verma Associates, Inc.’s Motion for LAN/T.Y. Lin, et al. Leave to file a Cross-Complaint against Alliance Engineering Consulting, Inc.
See Line 2 below for complete tentative ruling.
After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal Order.
9:00 22CV408177 John Roe 1, et al. Order on Defendant Santa Clara 3 v. Unified School District (“SCUSD”)’s Mountain View Whisman Motion for Summary Judgment or, School District, et al. in the alternative, for Summary Adjudication
See Line 3 below for complete tentative ruling.
After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal Order.
9:00 25CV467427 Fresko Meat Distributions, Inc. Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to 4 v. Compel Further Responses for Rigoberto Sanchez, Jr., et al. Production of Documents from Defendant and for Sanctions
See Line 4 below for complete tentative ruling.
After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal Order.
9:00 25CV467427 Fresko Meat Distributions, Inc. Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to 5 v. Compel Inspection of Electronic Rigoberto Sanchez, Jr., et al. Devices and Cloud Storage Devices and for Sanctions
See Line 5 below for complete tentative ruling.
After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal Order.
9:00 23CV413334 Muhammad Khan Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave 6 v. to file First Amended Complaint Bay Area Criminal Lawyers, PC, et al. See Line 6 below for complete tentative ruling.
After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal Order.
9:00 7
9:00 8
9:00 9
9:00 10
9:00 11
9:00 12
9:00 13
9:00 14
Line 4 Case Name: Fresko Meat Distributions, Inc. v. Rigoberto Sanchez, Jr., et al. Case No.: 25CV467427 Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Fresko Meat Distributions, Inc. (“Fresko”) moves to compel Defendant Rigoberto Sanchez, Jr., to:
1. Provide further responses to Requests for Production Nos. (“RFPs”) 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 14 through 48; 2. Produce documents responsive to RFPs 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 14 through 48; and 3. Pay monetary sanctions to Fresko in the amount of $7,2600.00 for Fresko’s attorneys’ fees and costs incurred for this Motion. Notice of Motion (the “Motion”) at 1:4-12 (filed: Dec. 18, 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?”
The Motion came on for hearing on July 17, 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.
This Motion is straightforward.
On September 4, 2025, Fresko served Mr. Sanchez with these RFPs. Declaration of Daniel J. Muller In Support of Motion (“Muller Decl.”) at ¶ 2 & Exhibit A (the RFPs) thereto.
Mr. Sanchez had a clear duty to provide Code-Compliant responses to these RFPs. To be Code Compliant, Mr. Sanchez’s responses to the RFPs must comply with C.C.P. §§ 2031.210-2031.230 by stating:
(a) Mr. Sanchez will comply with the RFP—and then produce the documents and items requested; (b) Mr. Sanchez is unable to comply with the RFP because the requested documents and items have never existed; or
(c) after diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Plaintiff is unable to comply because the requested documents and items no longer exist or are no longer in his possession, custody, or control.
C.C.P. §§ 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230.
To determine whether Mr. Sanchez’s responses were Code-Compliant, the Court has spent time carefully reviewing each and every one of Mr. Sanchez’s responses to RFPs Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 14 through 48, which are set forth in their entirety in Plaintiff’s Separate Statement In Support of this Motion. Having reviewed all of Mr. Sanchez’s responses, the Court finds that none of them are Code-Compliant; they are all evasive and improper.
Throughout his responses to these RFPs, Mr. Sanchez evasively and improperly states that he does not have possession, custody, or control of the requested documents “personally” or in his “individual capacity.” But he and his attorney Michael S. Warda, who prepared these evasive discovery responses, know well that as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Defendant DM Food Service Corp., Mr. Sanchez has control over, can produce, and is required to produce the discovery documents requested by these RFPs that his company has possession, custody, and control of.
And lest there be the slightest doubt, the Court now finds and rules that RFPs Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 14 through 48 all call for information that is relevant and that is reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible information—and thus is well within the scope of discoverable information that Fresko had the right to request through these RFPs and which Mr. Sanchez has the clear duty to provide Code-Compliant responses to under C.C.P. Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230
And Mr. Sanchez’s confidentiality objections that he has not produced the discovery documents requested by these RFPs because a confidentiality Protective Order is not in place is as evasive and misleading as his argument that as CEO he does not have control over the documents in the possession, custody, or control of his company Defendant DM Food Service Corp. For back on October 17, 2025, counsel for Fresko sent Mr. Sanchez’s lawyer a proposed stipulated protective order based on the Court’s model confidentiality order. Muller Decl. at ¶¶ 5-7 and Exhibit E (Protective Order) thereto. But Mr. Sanchez sat on it and never responded, id., yet now has the temerity to object to production based on the lack of a confidentiality order.
Having carefully reviewed the proposed confidentiality Protective Order filed as Exhibit E to the Muller Declaration, the Court finds it to be a well-crafted and appropriate Protective Order with confidentiality designations and use restrictions subject to review and enforcement by the Court. Hence, the Court endorsed, approved, signed, and filed this Protective Order on July 14, 2026. See Order (filed: July 14, 2026).
As this Signed Protective Order is now filed and in full force and effect in this case, Mr. Sanchez’s objections based on confidentiality are all OVERRULED. He can, will, and is ORDERED to produce responsive documents to RFPs Nos 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 14 through 48; he’s free to designate them, as appropriate, as Confidential under this Protective Order.
Accordingly, within 30 days of today, the Court ORDERS Mr. Sanchez to:
1. Provide further responses that are Code Compliant to RFPs Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 14 through 48, and
2. Produce documents responsive to RFPs Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 14 through 48.
As for Mr. Sanchez’s argument that the Motion is “moot” because over 10 months after these RFPs were propounded on September 4, 2025, he decided to serve supplemental responses to them on the same day he filed his Opposition brief on July 6, 2026, Mr. Sanchez’s argument fails on multiple levels.
First, this Motion is not moot because Mr. Sanchez “has yet to produce a single document” (Reply at 1:13) responsive to these RFPs in violation of clear duty to do so under C.C.P. §§ 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230.
Second, by failing to produce any responsive documents to these RFPs, Mr. Sanchez has not “cured” his deficient discovery responses to these RFPs.
Third, because Mr. Sanchez failed to provide Code-Compliant Responses by the date they were due under the Code of Civil Procedure on October 7, 2025, Fresko was fully justified in filing this Motion when it did on December 18, 2025.
Fourth, regarding the monetary sanction sought by Fresko for its attorneys’ costs and fees for this Motion, the fact that Mr. Sanchez made a supplemental discovery on July 6, 2026—nearly seven months after the Motion was filed—does not divest the Court of authority and discretion to award a monetary sanction here against Mr. Sanchez for the amount that Fresko reasonably incurred for bringing this Motion to compel Mr. Sanchez to provide further responses and produce responsive documents. See Cal.
Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a) (“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though . . . the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390, at 408-409 (“once a party has failed to serve timely [discovery] responses, the trial court has the authority to hear a propounding party’s motion to compel responses . . . regardless of whether a party [later] serves an untimely response[,]” and going on to cite and quote Rule 3.1030(a), which in 2009 was renumbered as Rule 3.1348(a) supra, that the court may award sanctions even though the requested discovery responses were served after the motion was filed.)
In light of the plain text of Rule 3.1348(a), even though Mr. Sanchez argues as if he made a cure serving supplemental responses long after this December 18, 2025 Motion was filed, the Court retains authority and discretion under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2023.030(a) to impose a reasonable sanction against Mr. Sanchez here: “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” C.C.P. § 2023.030(a) (emphasis added). And, lest there be doubt, the Court reads Section 2023.010(d) to mean that failing to timely “respond . . . to an authorized method of
discovery” like RFPs is a “misuse of the discovery process” (C.C.P. § 2023.010(d)) subject to a reasonable sanction under Section 2023.030(a).
Hence, while the Court here may award Fresko a monetary sanction paid by Mr. Sanchez for Fresko’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred for this Motion to compel, the amount of this sanction is within the wide discretion of the Court. Simply put, the Court gets to determine what amount is reasonable under these circumstances.
Here, Fresko asks the Court to Order Mr. Sanchez to pay a monetary sanction of $9,060.00 now, which equals attorneys’ fees of $9,000.00 (for 15 hours of attorneys’ fees at $600 per hour), plus costs of $60.00 for the filing fee for this Motion. Muller Decl. at ¶10 (in initial moving papers, seeking $7,200 for attorneys’ fees); Reply at 10:1-3 (increasing attorneys’ fees sought by $1,800 for work done in Reply, i.e., $1,800 + $7,200 = $9,000 in attorneys’ fees total). In light of prevailing rates in the relevant market, the Court rules that this billable rate sought of $600.00 per hour is reasonable.
But the number of 15 hours of attorneys work for this straightforward motions to compel Mr. Sanchez to produce further responses to RFPs to make them Code Compliant, including providing responsive documents now, is unreasonable. This Motion was straightforward. All Fresko had to do to win it was point out that Fresko properly served these RFPs for relevant, discoverable information (they do); California law requires Mr. Sanchez to provide further responses to these RFPs that are Code Compliant—along with all responsive documents—now (it does); Mr. Sanchez’s objections were all evasive and frivolous (they are) and he failed to provide Code Compliant responses and failed to provide responsive documents to these RFPs (he failed badly).
The only additional point that needed to be addressed in the Reply papers was Mr. Sanchez’s weak “mootness” argument, which as explained above fails for multiple reasons.
These straightforward points reasonably should have taken Fresko’s lawyer six hours of attorney time to brief and argue. And the Court will award Fresko another 2 hours of attorney time reasonably incurred for the time Fresko’s lawyer had to wade through and analyze the lengthy but utterly unproductive meet and confer correspondence, objections, and opposition papers from Mr. Sanchez’s lawyer regarding this Motion. Accordingly, the Court finds that Fresko’s attorneys should reasonably have spent eight hours total to win this Motion to compel.
In addition, the Court awards Fresko as a part of this monetary sanction the $60.00 filing fee sought by Fresko that the Court finds was a reasonable cost that Fresko occurred for filing this Motion.
So, the total monetary sanction awarded now is $4,860.00, which equals $4,800.00 in reasonable attorneys’ fees (=8 hours total at $600.00 per hour) plus $60.00 in reasonable cost incurred by Fresko’s counsel for this Motion. And Mr. Sanchez will pay Fresko this $4,860.00 sanction within 30 days of today.
Conclusion & Order
Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED as follows. The Court ORDERS Mr. Sanchez within 30 days of today to:
1. Provide further responses that are Code Compliant to RFPs Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 14 through 48, and
2. Produce documents responsive to RFPs Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 14 through 48,
3. Pay Fresko $4,860.00 as a monetary sanction for Fresko’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred for this Motion.
Both Mr. Sanchez and his attorney Michael S. Warda are put on NOTICE that failure to comply with this ORDER within 30 days of today may result in escalating monetary sanctions against both Mr. Sanchez and attorney Warda as well as non-monetary sanctions against Mr. Sanchez including issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions.
SO ORDERED.
Date: July 17, 2026 Hon. Vincent I. Parrett Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara
Line 5 Case Name: Fresko Meat Distributions, Inc. v. Rigoberto Sanchez, Jr., et al. Case No.: 25CV467427 Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Fresko Meat Distributions, Inc. (“Fresko”) moves to compel Defendant Rigoberto Sanchez, Jr., to:
1. Provide further responses to Requests for Inspection Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4; 2. Make responsive devices and cloud storage accounts available; and 3. Pay monetary sanctions to Fresko in the amount of $3,600.00 for Fresko’s attorneys’ fees and costs incurred for this Motion. Notice of Motion (the “Motion”) at 1:4-12 (filed: Dec. 18, 2025).
The Motion came on for hearing on July 17, 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 September 4, 2025, Fresko made these four Requests for Inspection on Mr. Sanchez:
INSPECTION REQUEST NO. 1: Fresko requests to inspect all computers, telephones, smartphones, including all COMPUTER MEDIA devices, which YOU used in connection with YOUR employment at Fresko.
INSPECTION REQUEST NO. 2: Fresko requests to inspect all computers, telephones, smartphones, including all COMPUTER MEDIA devices, which YOU have used and I or are using in connection with DM Food Service, Corp.
INSPECTION REQUEST NO. 3: Fresko requests to inspect all ONLINE STORAGE SYSTEMS which YOU used in connection with Fresko.
INSPECTION REQUEST NO. 4: Fresko requests to inspect all ONLINE STORAGE SYSTEMS which YOU have used or are using in connection with DM Food Service, Corp.
Declaration of Daniel Muller In Support of Motion to Compel Inspection of Electronic Devices (“Muller Decl.”) at ¶ 2 and Exhibit A (Inspection Requests) thereto.
26