Plaintiff’s MTC Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
15. Lewis v. Walmart, Inc., Case No. CIVSB2218176 Plaintiff’s MTC Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One 5/7/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17 Tentative Rulings The Court would DENY the motion as moot given that Defendant has provided the at-issue verifications. The Court would also DENY sanctions. Case Summary This is a personal injury case.
Plaintiff alleges that on or about August 27, 2020, she was injured at Defendant’s property in Redlands. She alleges that as she was walking down the bedding aisle of the subject store, she walked past an employee who was pulling a pallet with unsecured boxes. She alleges that the pallet fell and landed on her. Thus, she asserts that Defendant’s negligence and carelessness was the cause of her injuries. She filed suit on August 26, 2022, asserting causes for (1) general liability and (2) premises liability.
Relevant here, on July 6, 2026, Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests for Production, Set One (RFP1). Defendant served unverified responses and objections on September 26, 2026. Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel verified responses to RFP1.
Analysis
Plaintiff gave Defendant an extension to respond, “through January 9, 2026.” (Lewis Decl., ¶¶2 & 4.) Plaintiff argues Defendant never served responses to this discovery and now seeks “full and complete” responses. (Lewis Decl., ¶5.)
Defendant argues that it had until September 26, 2025, to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery. (Sanschagrin Decl., Ex. D.) On September 26, 2026, Defendant produced responsive documents and served objections and unverified responses to the RFP1s. (Sanschagrin Decl., Ex. E.) With the service of its opposition, Defendant provided a verification to Plaintiff’s RFP1s dated October 3, 2025.
By its failure to serve a timely verification, Defendant had not previously responded to Plaintiff’s discovery. An unverified response to discovery is tantamount to no response at all. (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) However, by serving the verification, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is now moot.
Plaintiff also asks the Court to deem Defendant’s objections waived under Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.300. However, the lack of verification did not waive the objections stated in Defendant’s timely served unverified responses. (Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 651, 657-658
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?”
Finally, Plaintiff asks the Court to award monetary sanctions. However, Plaintiff’s motion does not comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure at section 2023.040. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.) Plaintiff’s notice of motion does not identify who she seeks sanctions from; cite the authority for the sanctions; or include a declaration “setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.” (Ibid.) Thus, the Court would deny sanctions. *** *** ***
16. WLP DEL MAR I, LLC v. Straughter, et al, Case No. LLTVA2402206 Defendant’s Motion “for Payout” 5/7/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17
In this case, a default money judgment was entered against the Defendant-Tenant (here, Straughter) on December 23, 2024. However, though no party has formally related the cases, Defendant filed a complaint against the landlord in a separate matter (Straughter v. WLP Del Mar I LLC (CIVSB2418046) – filed on June 4, 2024). That separate case moved forward in Department S26 until it was dismissed, after Straughter (plaintiff in that matter) failed to appear on four occasions. (Minute Order, Dept. S26, 4/8/26.)
While this pro per motion is vaguely worded, it appears that movant is asking this Court for a “payout” or judgment against WLP Del Mar pursuant to the allegations that she set forth in that separate matter (CIVSB2418046). Thus, as a preliminary matter, she has brought her motion before the wrong court in the wrong case. More importantly, however, that case was previously dismissed and would need to be revived before she could seek a judgment there. The motion is DENIED. *** *** ***
17. Powell, et al, v. Forest Park Mutual Water Company, Case No. CIVSB2427211 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike and Tax Costs 5/7/25, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17
Tentative Rulings The Court would GRANT in part and DENY in part. Item 11 is taxed from $3,381 to $1,275. The remaining challenged relief is denied. Defendant shall recover $2,079, jointly and severally against Plaintiffs.
3