| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Plaintiff's Motions to Compel Initial Responses to (1) Special Interrogatories as to Defendant Six-G's Automotive, (2) Requests for Production of Documents as to Defendant Six-G's Automotive, (3) Special Interrogatories as to Defendant Groppetti Ltd, (4) Requests for Production of Documents as to Defendant Groppetti Ltd; and for sanctions.
Case No.: VCU314153 Date: May 18, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 7-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide Motion: Plaintiff's Motions to Compel Initial Responses to (1) Special Interrogatories as to Defendant Six-G's Automotive, (2) Requests for Production of Documents as to Defendant Six-G's Automotive, (3) Special Interrogatories as to Defendant Groppetti Ltd, (4) Requests for Production of Documents as to Defendant Groppetti Ltd; and for sanctions.
Tentative Ruling: (1) through (2): To grant the motions and compel initial responses no later than thirty (30) days from notice of this ruling; to impose sanctions in the amount of $350 against Defendant Six-G's Automotive; sanctions due no later than thirty (30) days from notice of this ruling; Plaintiff is ordered to give notice. (3) and (4) To find the motions to compel responses moot by the service of responses on May 1, 2026 and May 4, 2026; to impose sanctions in the amount of $350 against Defendant Groppetti Ltd and counsel of record, jointly and severally; sanctions due no thirty (30) days from notice of this ruling; Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
Facts Common to (1) through (4) Plaintiff's first amended complaint brings a number of Labor Code and Business and Professions Code causes of action on a classwide basis and seeks penalties under PAGA.
On May 2, 2025, Plaintiff served his Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Production (Set One) upon Defendants Six-G's Automotive and Groppetti Ltd.
On May 27, 2025, Defendants emailed Plaintiff and stated it is working towards responding to Plaintiff's discovery requests.
On May 30, 2025, Defendants requested an extension to respond to Plaintiff's Discovery Set One, until June 6, 2025, which Plaintiff granted.
On June 6, 2025, Defendants requested a two-week extension to respond to Plaintiff's Discovery Set One, which Plaintiff granted, to June 20, 2025.
On June 20, 2025, Defendants failed to respond to Plaintiff's discovery: "Defendant's counsel...stated it was his understanding that "we were attempting to move this case towards mediation to save all the parties the expense of formal litigation. All other Plaintiff's counsel have agreed to stay formal discovery in lieu of an agreement to proceed with an informal exchange of all necessary information to prepare this case for mediation."
Additionally, Defendant stated, "while it was my understanding we had already agreed to proceed in the same manner in this case, I would now propose such an agreement."
However, Plaintiff indicates that they have not conceded to refrain from formal discovery pending mediation.
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?”
Parties agreed to mediate this matter and participate in an informal discovery exchange ahead of the mediation.
Plaintiff agreed to refrain from filing a motion to compel responses to his discovery until after the mediation, if necessary, to conserve the Parties' and the court's time and resources.
On July 29, 2025, the Parties scheduled mediation with mediator Steve Serratore, set for April 20, 2026.
As Defendants did not provide any of Plaintiff's requested information prior to mediation, neither did Defendants provide an update on whether it will be complying with Plaintiff's request, Plaintiff cancelled mediation on the date of the mediator's cancellation deadline.
Therefore, Plaintiff seeks to compel initial responses to the discovery noted above, as well as $1,543.75 in sanctions as to each motion.
In opposition, Defendant Groppetti indicates responses to interrogatories were served May 1, 2026 and responses to requests for production were served May 4, 2026.
Further, Defendant Groppetti argues these motions (Nos. 3 and 4 above) are moot and that sanctions should be denied on the basis that "The attorney who previously handled this matter for Groppetti left Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani and failed to advise anyone that these responses were pending."
No opposition or responses, however, appears to have been filed by Defendant Six G's Automotive as to Nos. 1 and 2.
Authority and Analysis (1) Interrogatories - Six G's Automotive Based on Defendant Six G's Automotive's failure to respond to the first set of special interrogatories, the Court orders under, Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290(a), that Defendant Six G's Automotive provide full and complete verified responses without objection to Plaintiff's first set of special interrogatories, within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion; Plaintiff shall give notice.
(2) Requests for Production - Six G's Automotive Based on Defendant Six G's Automotive's Defendant's failure to respond to the first set requests for production of documents, the Court orders under, Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300(a) that Defendant provide full and complete verified responses without objection to Plaintiff's first set of requests for production of documents, within thirty (30) days after service of the notice of this ruling for this motion.
Plaintiff shall give notice.
(3) and (4) - Interrogatories and Requests for Production - Groppetti Ltd The Court agrees that service of the responses May 1, 2026 and May 4, 2024 renders the motion to compel initial responses as to (3) Special Interrogatories as to Defendant Groppetti Ltd and (4) Requests for Production of Documents as to Defendant Groppetti Ltd moot.
Sanctions Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290(c) (Interrogatories) and 2031.300(c) (Requests for Production), the Court will impose sanctions as follows: $350 as to Defendant Six-G's Automotive; and $350 as to Defendant Groppetti Ltd and counsel of record, jointly and severally.
The Court notes there is no meet and confer requirement and all that is necessary to obtain the relief requested on this motion to compel initial responses is that the other party failed to respond within the designated time.
Further, that a single handling attorney in a large firm failed to prepare responses or inform others that responses were due does not constitute an unjust imposition of a sanction.
Sanctions are due no later than thirty (30) days from notice of this ruling.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.
If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary.
The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division.
The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.
Visalia-County Civic Center Honorable Bret D. Hillman Presiding- Department 2 Examiner notes for probate matters calendared Monday, May 18, 2026, that allow for posting: Status: Recommended for Approval (RFA), Appearance Required or Recommended, Approval Conditional Upon, etc. Case Number | Case Name | Type | Status | Comments | VPR054013 | In the Matter of Guerrero, Aurelio Acuna |