Motion to Compel Further Responses
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
LINE CASE NO. CASE TITLE TENTATIVE RULING 9:00 23CV424190 AI Technology vs. Plaintiff moves petitions this court to compel Defendant to respond to Request for 1 Renesas Electronics Production of Documents Set Five No. 62-82 and moves for sanctions. Plaintiff America argues that Defendant fails to identify the documents withheld based on the stated objections and fails to provide the document code numbers that it claims to be responsive to Plaintiff’s request. CCP 2031.20 mandates responses to have such particularity as Plaintiff argues.
This court notes that Defendant failed to provide the specific privilege or identify the specific documents as required under CCP 2031.20. Defendant submitted no objections to Plaintiff’s petition. Plaintiff’s petition is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion for monetary sanctions of $2,000 is GRANTED. 9:00 24CV438439 Diane Volgenau vs. Defendant moves this court to enforce the settlement agreement approved by an 2 Blake Volgenau, et.al. attorney appointed by this court to serve as a pro tem judge for purposes of the settlement agreement.
Plaintiff argues that the settlement agreement is not enforceable because the agreement was not signed nor was it agreed to in front of this court; therefore, CCP section 664.6 was not complied with. This court finds that because the court appointed an attorney to serve as pro tem judge for purposes of the settlement agreement, section 664.6 has been complied with. Defendant’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement is GRANTED. 9:00 24CV451322 Isauro Juarez- Plaintiff petitions this court to further compel Intervenor Avis Budget Group Inc. to 3 Mendoza, et.al. vs answer Plaintiff’s request for admissions without conditioning its response to Luis Ramirez Fuentes, “assuming You refers solely to responding party.”
Defendant/Intervenor argues et.al. that Plaintiff’s petition should be denied based on timeliness. Defendant/Intervenor also argues that it complied with Plaintiff’s request for admission. This court deems Plaintiff’s motion as timely as it was filed within the 45 calendar days plus an additional 2 court days for electronic filing. This ourt finds that plaintiff did electronically file within the proscribed time frame. This court also finds that Plaintiff is correct that you refers to any party that represents the Defendant including the Intervenor and should not be answered with the qualifying phrase “assuming you refers solely to responding party.
Petition for Defendant/Intervenor Avis Budget Group to respond to Plaintiff’s request for admission is GRANTED. This court orders Avis Budget Group to answer Plaintiff’s request for admissions without the phrase “assuming You refers solely to responding party. 9:00 25CV461594 Monica Alcantar vs. Defendant petitions this court to compel Plaintiff to appear for a deposition. 4 General Motors, LLC Plaintiff’s argument that she notified defendant of failure to appear for deposition does not constitute good cause for Plaintiff’s failure to produce attendance at a deposition especially when the deadline was in November of 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?”
Under CCP 871.26(j)(2), sanctions of $1500 are mandatory. Defendants petition is GRANTED. Defendant’s motion for sanctions of $1500 is GRANTED. 9:00 25CV466156 Parastou Mafi vs. See below 5 Lynn Jozani 9:00 25CV466156 Isella Cantu vs. Nam Continued to 10/29/26 6 Tran, et.al. 9:00 25CV481653 Wells Fargo Bank, Plaintiff moves this court to deem the truth of the matters specified in Plaintiff’s 7 N.A. vs Rachael Dicen Request for Admissions as admitted. Plaintiff served Defendant on January 5, 2026 with a request for admissions.
Defendant’s responses were due February 10, 2026 but she never responded. Defendant did not file a response to Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.
3