Motion to Compel Further Responses
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel regarding Defendant’s request for supplemental responses and advised the last day for Defendant to file its contemplated Motion to Compel Further Responses was 2/2/2026. (Id. ¶6.) Having not received supplemental responses, this motion was filed on 2/2/2026.
Here, Interrogatory 17.1 states:
Is your response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified admission: (a) state the number of the request; (b) state all facts upon which you base your response; (c) state the names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of those facts; and (d) identify all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or thing.
As to several RFAs, Plaintiff appears to have impermissibly grouped them together. Answers must be complete and responsive. [Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.]
In other responses, Plaintiff is evasive. And yet in others, the responses are inconsistent or incomplete. Notably, each answer in the response must be “as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits. If an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” [CCP § 2030.220(a), (b)]
Therefore, the unopposed Motion is granted for the reasons stated in the Motion and Separate Statement. Supplemental responses to be served within 20 days.
Finally, while Defendant complains about boilerplate objections, it fails to set those forth in the separate statement. As such, the Court will not rule on the objections.
As to sanctions, while the amount of sanctions is not set forth in the notice of motion, Defendant’s notice of motion did request monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and identified the enabling statute as CCP §2030.300
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?”
Sanctions are warranted here as Plaintiff failed to provide supplemental responses, which required Defendant to prepare and file this motion. Plaintiff also failed to oppose this motion.
Thus, the Court orders sanctions in the amount of $2,221.65 (9 hours at $240 an hour + $61.65 filing fee) against Plaintiff Marisol Maldonado, to be paid within 20 days.
Defendant to provide notice. 107 Mandaric vs. Zhu, 25-01535555 Off-calendar.
108 James Bay Resources Limited vs. Lockett & Horwitz, 23-01313001 Defendant, Lockett & Horwitz, Inc., fka as Horwitz & Armstrong, PLC (“L&H”) moves for an order granting summary judgment against Plaintiffs, James Bay Resources Limited (“James Bay”) and Stephen Shefsky (“Shefsky”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) as to the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Alternatively, L&H moves for summary adjudication of the first cause of action (Issue No. 1), the second cause of action (Issue Nos. 2 and 3), the third cause of action (Issue No. 4), and all causes of action on the basis that they are all fail as they were raised after the expiration of the statute of limitations (Issue No. 5).
Initially, L&H filed and served original moving papers on March 6, 2026. The original motion sought only summary judgment. (ROA 189.) The original Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts consists of 30 facts in support of summary judgment only. (ROA 181.) Thereafter, on May 5, 2026, L&H filed an Amended Notice of Motion and Motion which moved for summary judgment as in the original motion, but also moved, in the alternative, for summary adjudication on five issues. (ROA 231.) In support of the Amended Notice of Motion and Motion, L&H filed an Amended Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts which added the five issues and the asserted undisputed material facts for each of these issues. (ROA 229.) The Amended Motion is considered.
Request for Continuance Plaintiffs contend that the instant Amended Motion for Summary Judgment is premature and that the motion should be denied or continued under Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(h) because L&H has failed to respond substantively to discovery propounded on it on May 23, 2025, and September 17, 2025.
The reply does not address this argument.
“If it appears from the affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, or both, that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented, the court shall deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, or make any other order as may be just.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(h).)
A continuance is a matter within the broad discretion of the court but is “virtually mandated ‘ “upon a good faith showing by affidavit that a continuance is needed to obtain facts essential to justify opposition to the motion.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Bahl v. Bank of America (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 389, 395.) Continuances are to be liberally granted.” (Ibid.) “Where the opposing party submits an adequate affidavit showing that essential facts may exist but cannot be presented timely, the court must either deny summary judgment or grant a continuance. [Citation.]” (Dee v.
Vintage Petroleum, Inc. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 30, 34-35.) “The nonmoving party seeking a continuance ‘must show: (1) the facts to be obtained are essential to opposing the motion; (2) there is reason to believe such facts may exist; and (3) the reasons why additional time is needed to obtain these facts. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Frazee v. Seely (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 627, 633.) “[T]he affiant is not required to show that essential evidence does exist, but only that it may exist.” (Id. at p. 634.)
“The affidavit or declaration in support of the continuance request must detail the specific facts that would show the existence of controverting evidence. [Citations.]” (Lerma v. County of Orange (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 709, 715 (“Lerma”).) “The party seeking the continuance must justify the need, by detailing both the particular essential facts that may exist and the specific reasons why they cannot then be presented.” (Ibid.)
A continuance is not mandatory where the party opposing the motion fails to submit an affidavit that outstanding discovery could lead to evidence necessary to justify opposition, and it is not an abuse of discretion to deny a continuance under such circumstances. (Scott v. CIBA Vision Corp. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 307, 325-326.) Nonetheless, “ [w]hen a continuance of a summary judgment motion is not mandatory, because of a failure to meet the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h), the court must determine whether the party requesting the continuance has nonetheless established good cause therefor.” (Lerma, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 716; see Chavez v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 632, 643, 644 [abuse of discretion to refuse continuance when papers showed proposed discovery “essential” to the opposition].) “That determination is within the court’s discretion. [Citations.]” (Lerma, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 716.)
Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel provides that on May 23, 2025, Plaintiffs served Requests for Production, Set One and Form Interrogatories, Set one on L&H to which Plaintiffs served deficient responses. (Declaration of Jeanine Zalduendo, ¶ 10, Exs. 2-3.) Plaintiffs’ counsel provides that L&H produced 13