Arguello v. Moran Law Firm, LLP

Here, defendant served its supplemental verified responses to the form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for admissions on September 23, 2025. (Arguello decl., ¶ 16.) Service of the responses was by electronic delivery, which extended the time to bring the motions by two days. Thus, plaintiff had 47 days in which to file and serve his motions to compel further responses to the form and special interrogatories and requests for admissions, unless the parties agreed in writing to a later date. The parties never agreed to extend the time to bring the motions to compel.

As a result, plaintiff need to file and serve his motions to compel by November 10, 2025, as November 9 was a Sunday. After the parties were unable to resolve their dispute in the meet and confer process, plaintiff filed a request for pretrial discovery conference on November 10, 2025. The filing of the request tolled the deadline to bring the motions until the request was ruled on by the court. (Fresno Sup. Ct. Local Rules, rule 2.1.17 G.)

The court denied the request on November 24, 2025 and granted plaintiff leave to file his motions to compel. (Order on Request for Pretrial Discovery Conference dated November 24, 2025.) The court noted that the time to bring the motions was tolled by 14 days. (Ibid.) The court served its order on the parties by electronic delivery on November 24, 2025, which extended the tolling period for another two days. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff filed his motion to compel on December 8, 2025. However, even taking into account the additional 14 days of tolling due to the filing of the pretrial discovery conference request, plus another two days for electronic service of the court’s order denying the request for pretrial discovery conference, plaintiff still needed to file and serve his motion by November 26, 2025. Plaintiff did not file his motion until December 8, 2025, twelve days after the deadline ran.

Thus, plaintiff waived his right to move for a further response to the form and special interrogatories and requests for admissions. As a result, the court has no jurisdiction to grant the motion to compel or the related request for sanctions. (Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 147 Cal.App.3d at p. 683; Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 84 Cal.App.5th at p. 137.) Therefore, the court must deny the motion for untimeliness.

In addition, the court intends to grant sanctions against plaintiff for bringing an unjustified motion to compel further responses. Sanctions are mandatory where a party unsuccessfully brings a motion to compel further responses, unless the court finds that the party subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or other circumstances that make imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d); 2031.310, subd. (h); 2033.290, subd. (d).)

Here, plaintiff has brought a motion to compel further responses despite the fact that the deadline for bringing the motion had expired, and he has insisted on prosecuting the motion even after defendant pointed out that the motion was untimely. Thus, plaintiff’s actions were not substantially unjustified, and have resulted in defendant and the court wasting a significant amount of time on motion that cannot be granted. As a result, the court intends to impose sanctions against plaintiff for bringing an unjustified and untimely motion to compel.

Defendant has requested $2,600 in sanctions based on 6.5 hours of attorney time billed at $400. (Dobbins decl., ¶ 16.) The court finds that counsel’s hourly rate of $400 is reasonable. However, it should not have taken 6.5 hours of attorney time to oppose the motion, which is similar to another recent set of motions to compel brought by plaintiff. Instead, the court will calculate sanctions based on four hours of attorney time billed at $400 per hour. Therefore, the court will only award $1,600 in sanctions to defendant.

However, if a hearing is required and plaintiff fails to prevail on his motions, then the court may order plaintiff to pay additional sanctions.

Motion to Compel Depositions: First, plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective, as plaintiff did not obtain leave of court before filing the motion. Under Fresno Superior Court Local Rule 2.1.17 A, “No motion under sections 2017.010 through 2036.050, inclusive, of the California Code of Civil Procedure shall be heard in a civil unlimited case unless the moving party has first requested an informal Pretrial Discovery Conference with the Court and such request has either been denied and permission to file the motion is granted via court order or the discovery dispute has not been resolved as a result of the Conference and permission to file the motion is expressly granted.”

However, “[t]his rule shall not apply the following: 1. Motions to compel the deposition of a duly noticed party or subpoenaed person(s) who have not timely served an objection pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410.” (Fresno Sup. Ct. Local Rules, rule 2.1.17 A1, para. break omitted.)

Here, the plaintiff served notices of the depositions of the witnesses on December 9, 2025. Defendant served objections to some of the deposition notices, contending that plaintiff’s counsel chose the deposition dates unilaterally and that defense counsel was not available on the dates chosen by plaintiff. Thus, plaintiff was obligated to file a request for pretrial discovery conference and obtain leave of court before filing his motion to compel the depositions.

However, plaintiff did not file a request for pretrial discovery conference, and instead filed his motion to compel the depositions on January 9, 2026. Notably, defense counsel did file a request for pretrial discovery conference on January 13, 2026 regarding the depositions. Plaintiff opposed the request. The court denied the request on January 15, 2026, but did not grant plaintiff permission to file a motion to compel the depositions.

Instead, the court indicated that the parties should work the matter out amongst themselves “without games”, and that “depositions should not be unilaterally set.” “If the parties truly cannot come to an agreement, a motion to compel can be filed; however, sanctions will be awarded for utilizing the court to essentially calendar depositions for you.” (January 15, 2026 Order on Request for Pretrial Discovery Conference.)

Thus, the court did not grant plaintiff permission to file his motion to compel depositions before the motion was filed. Nor did the court grant permission to file the motion retroactively. Instead, the court indicated that the parties should work their dispute out without involving the court, if possible. Since the motion was filed without the court’s permission, it is not properly before the court and the court may deny it for that reason alone.

Also, it is worth noting that, at the ex parte hearing on January 15, 2026, the parties indicated that they had agreed to dates for the depositions of Pedro Ramirez and Jodi Ecols. (January 15, 2026 Minute Order on Ex Parte Hearing.) The court also ordered defense counsel to facilitate the depositions of Victoria Short and Kevin Hines no later than March 3, 2026. (Ibid.) Thus, the parties may already had taken the depositions of all four of the witnesses, in which case the present motion is moot. However, the motion is still on calendar at this time, as plaintiff has not requested that it be taken off calendar.

In addition, most of the witnesses had not actually failed to appear for their depositions at the time the motion was filed, so plaintiff is not entitled to move to compel their depositions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450. “If, after service of a deposition notice, ... an.... employee of a party, ... without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, ... the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony...” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a)(1).)

“The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition ..., by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).)

Here, plaintiff only attempted to take the deposition of Victoria Short, who failed to appear for her deposition. However, defense counsel did object before the deposition, so plaintiff was not necessarily entitled to move to compel her appearance under section 2025.450(a). Plaintiff also did not try to take the depositions of the other witnesses, and instead moved to compel the depositions of all of the witnesses immediately after attempting to take Short’s deposition. Thus, plaintiff’s motion is improper to the extent that he seeks to compel the depositions of Hines, Ramirez, and Ecols.

Plaintiff contends that defense counsel’s objection based on his own unavailability is not a valid basis to object to a deposition, and that the court should overrule the objection and order the depositions. Yet plaintiff’s counsel has not shown that he made any attempt to meet and confer regarding the defendant’s objections after he attempted to take Short’s deposition, or that he even made an effort to contact defense counsel about the nonappearance. Therefore, the court finds that the motion to compel is procedurally defective, and it will deny it. The court will also deny plaintiff’s request for sanctions of $17,739, as plaintiff has failed to prevail on the merits of his motion to compel.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: KCK on 05/01/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

6