Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Production of Documents
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
24CV023897: BLOCKTON vs NORTH AMERICAN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 01/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Production of Documents in Department 28
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 pm in Department 28, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding. Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must: (1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874- 2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and (2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.
If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court. If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.
The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept28 SIP Address: 16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16039062174 Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf.
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?”
Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official
24CV023897: BLOCKTON vs NORTH AMERICAN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 01/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Production of Documents in Department 28
Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
Tentative Ruling:
Defendant Ronald Contes (Defendant) motion to compel Plaintiff Rickey Dean Blockton (Plaintiff) to provide responses to demand for production of documents, set one, is unopposed and ruled upon as follows.
On April 17, 2025, Defendant propounded on the Plaintiff, Defendants demand for production of documents, set one (Decl. Jubelt, ¶4; Exhibit A).
Plaintiffs responses to this discovery were due by May 19, 2025. On June 23, 2025, Plaintiff served responses without signed verifications (Decl. Jubelt, ¶6; Exhibit B).
On July 8, 2025, Defense Counsels office prepared a meet and confer letter regarding Plaintiffs discovery responses and lack of verifications, and e-mailed to Plaintiffs counsel (Decl. Jubelt, ¶7; Exhibit C).
On August 5, 2025, Defense Counsel e-mailed Plaintiffs counsel and reminded them that Plaintiff had still not served signed verifications to the responses served on June 23, 2025, and asked when Defendant could expect the signed verifications (Decl. Jubelt, ¶8; Exhibit D).
On August 5, 2025, Plaintiffs counsel responded via e-mail that the office was working on getting the signed verifications (Decl. Jubelt, ¶9; Exhibit E).
On August 18, 2025, Defense Counsel e-mailed Plaintiffs counsel again, and advised Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
24CV023897: BLOCKTON vs NORTH AMERICAN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 01/12/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Demand for Production of Documents in Department 28
counsel that if Plaintiff did not serve signed verifications to the discovery responses served on June 23, 2025, Defense Counsel would have no choice but to file a motion to compel (Decl. Jubelt, ¶10; Exhibit F).
Plaintiffs counsel did not respond to Defense Counsels e-mail from August 18, 2025. As of the date of the filing of this motion, Plaintiffs counsel failed to provide verified responses to Defendants demand for production of documents, set one. (Decl. Jubelt, ¶11).
Unverified responses are tantamount to no responses at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court, (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 635-636.)
Defendants motion to compel Plaintiff to provide verified code-compliant responses, without objection, to Defendants demand for production of documents, set one, is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve such responses no later than January 26, 2026.
Defendants request for sanctions is DENIED as the motion is unopposed.
The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Courts tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to attempt to contact opposing counsel and advise them of Local Rule 1.06 and the Courts tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing in person or remotely.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.