Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, set one
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
23CV010098: 140 BLUE RAVINE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs PHOENIX MOTOR, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 06/25/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 53
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Public Notice Civil Division Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 25, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.
At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail 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 it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.
The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Courts Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. 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/sscdept25 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 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. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official 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.
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?”
Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver
23CV010098: 140 BLUE RAVINE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs PHOENIX MOTOR, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 06/25/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 53
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 Phoenix Motor, Inc.s (Defendant) motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one, is DENIED. Defendant served special interrogatories, set one, on Plaintiff 140 Blue Ravine, LLC (Plaintiff) on December 11, 2024. (Declaration of Matthew Hodroff, ¶2.) Plaintiff served responses on January 31, 2025. (Id., ¶3.) Defendants counsel found Plaintiffs responses to be insufficient under the Discovery Act. (Ibid.) On February 27, 2025, Defendants counsel sent Plaintiffs counsel a meet and confer letter requesting amended responses and an extension to file a corresponding motion to compel. (Id., ¶4.)
On March 5, 2025, Plaintiffs counsel responded by letter, granting the extension but refusing to amend the responses; Plaintiff represented that it had substantively responded, but that counsel will gladly meet and confer again if Defendant believed the substantive responses were incomplete or deficient. (Id., ¶5, Exh. B.) On March 7, 2025, Defendants counsel sent a follow up meet and confer letter (Exh.C to Hodroff Decl.), asserting that we have detailed our position . . . and are not required to meet and confer in person, and proceeded to file the instant motion on March 14, 2025.
The Court continued the matter from May 12, 2025 to June 25, 2025, finding Defendants counsels attempts to meet and confer prior to filing the motion were insufficient. The Court ordered counsel for the parties to continue to meet and confer on the issues in person or telephonically, and to file a joint statement no later than June 11, 2025 indicating which discovery requests had been resolved and which remain outstanding. On June 11, 2025, Plaintiffs counsel filed an individual statement and a declaration, representing his office met and conferred with Defendants counsel by phone on May 27, 2025. (Declaration of Josh Escovedo, ¶3.)
Plaintiffs counsel represented that Defendants counsel had indicated he would prepare the initial draft of the joint statement, but never provided the draft, despite multiple follow up requests from Plaintiffs counsels office. (Id., ¶¶4-9.) Plaintiff agreed to amend Plaintiffs responses to Defendants Requests for Production nos. 3-11, 13, 14, 16, and 17. (Id., ¶10.) Plaintiff also agreed to amend its responses to Special Interrogatories nos. 1, 34, 9, 11, 16, 20, 22, 2526, 28, 32, 36, and 3839. (Ibid.)
Defendant has not filed any individual statement regarding what, if any, discovery disputes
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
23CV010098: 140 BLUE RAVINE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs PHOENIX MOTOR, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al. 06/25/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 53
remain outstanding. Given that this is Defendants motion, Defendants counsel is admonished for his failure to fully participate in the meet and confer process in good faith as required by the Discovery Act and as specifically ordered by the Court, including the filing of a joint statement. The Court construes Defendants failure to file a statement as an indication that the discovery disputes have been resolved in their entirety. The motion is therefore DENIED as moot. Alternatively, the motion is DENIED due to Defendants failure to meet and confer as required by the Discovery Act and for failure to file a joint statement in conjunction with the meet and confer requirement, as ordered by the Court. (See e.g.
Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294 [describing meet and confer requirement prior to filing a motion to compel discovery responses].) The Court notes that in Plaintiffs counsels declaration, he requests an award of monetary sanctions for being forced to shoulder the full burden of the joint statement and to pester Defendants in the hope of causing them to comply with the Courts order. (Escovedo Decl., ¶14.) This is not a properly sought request for sanctions. Moreover, because the Court is not ruling on the merits of Plaintiffs responses at issue, the Court makes no finding that either party has been unsuccessful in making or opposing the motion. (See Code of Civ.
Proc. § 2030.300(d).) The request is therefore denied, without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a separately noticed motion for sanctions. The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.