| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Notice Of Motion To Compel Discovery Responses And To Have Requests For Admission Deemed As Admitted
SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC26632620 - May 13, 2026 Hearing date: May 13, 2026 Case number: CGC26632620 Case title: EDWARD JIMENEZ VS. SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY ET AL Case Number: | | CGC26632620 | Case Title: | | EDWARD JIMENEZ VS. SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-05-13 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion To Compel Discovery Responses And To Have Requests For Admission Deemed As Admitted | Rulings: | | Set for Law and Motion/Discovery on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, Line 11, DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO's Motion To Compel Discovery Responses And To Have Requests For Admission Deemed As Admitted.
Defendant City and County of San Francisco's Motion To Compel Discovery Responses And To Have Requests For Admission Deemed As Admitted is GRANTED.
As to the interrogatories, the discovery requests at issue appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (See Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010.) Plaintiff failed to timely provide any responses to the interrogatories. Plaintiff's failure to timely respond is not excused. (See Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290.)
As to the Requests for Production ("RFPs"), the discovery requests at issue appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (See Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010.) Plaintiff's failed to timely provide any responses to the RFPs. Plaintiff's failure to timely respond is not excused. (See Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300.) Plaintiff shall serve verified, substantive responses free of objections to Defendant's Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One and RFP, Set One no later than June 8, 2027.
The record demonstrates Plaintiff did not provide any responses to Defendant's Request For Admissions. Set One. (See Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280.) Plaintiff's failure to timely respond is not excused. No meet and confer requirement attaches when no responses have been provided. Defendant's RFAs, Set One are deemed admitted.
Defendant may not have been specifically obligated to meet and confer regarding discovery responses, given Plaintiff failed to provide any response at all. And, of course, counsel must advocate for their client. At the same time, all parties have an obligation to "cooperate in bringing the action to trial or other disposition." (Code of Civil Procedure section 583.130.) Basically, the parties ae to direct their efforts at a resolution on the merits rather than disposition on technical grounds, even if the other side fails to exercise due diligence in one respect or another. (See ibid.)
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?”
Here, Defendant moved only three days after Plaintiff's responses were due and did so without even trying to discuss the issues with Plaintiff. Further, Defendant moved only days after Plaintiff's counsel served a notice of change in responsible attorney. Perhaps Defendant has a "right" to the above order, but the court has reservations about its approach.
The parties are advised stacked motions are disfavored and, most often, improper. Parties generally may not stack separate motions into a single filing; instead, each distinct motion should typically be presented in a separate, properly captioned document. (See Weil & Brown et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2024) 9:24.3.) ["Each motion or demurrer should normally be set forth in a separate document."].) This rule applies equally to discovery motions. This means generally a separate motion per discovery vehicle addressed to a particular individual.
Distinct motions preserve clarity for both opposing parties and the court. Distinct motions, as well, allow the court to manage its resources (e.g., staggering or deferring motions), which is a compelling interest in oversubscribed courts such as this one. Yes, sometimes a stacked motion is appropriate because the issues are closely related, and clarity is preserved. But counsel and parties must use reasonable judgment, recognizing stacked motions are the exception, not the rule.
Going forward, improperly stacked motions will be taken off calendar. On this record, the court declines to award sanctions. (Part 1 of 2, tentative ruling continues in Part 2 of 2) | |