DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
PR-26-000073·stanislaus·Civil·Trust Administration
Hearing todayCONTINUED

IN THE MATTER OF DONALD & MARY ANN MCBRIDE LIVING TRUST

Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Petitioner's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Respondent; Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Petitioner's First Set of Special Interrogatories to Respondent

Hearing date
Aug 26, 2026
Department
22
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Oct 8, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →

Parties

OtherDonald & Mary Ann McBride Living Trust

Ruling

briefing schedule. The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22: PR-26-000073 - IN THE MATTER OF DONALD & MARY ANN MCBRIDE LIVING TRUST - a) Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Petitioner's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Respondent - CONTINUED to October 8, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22; b) Petitioner's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Petitioner's First Set of Special Interrogatories to Respondent - CONTINUED to October 8, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

a-b) The Court has reviewed Petitioner's supplemental declarations filed on August 17, 2026, which substantially narrow the motions. The Court finds the parties have made meaningful progress in narrowing the issues but that further targeted meet-and-confer efforts may resolve some or all of the remaining disputes without the need for formal Court intervention. Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES these motions to October 8, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 22.

No later than September 14, 2026, counsel and the self-represented Petitioner shall meet and confer in person or by videoconference regarding Requests for Production Nos. 4, 9, 10, 12, 17, 18, and 19 and Special Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 24, 25, and 26. Respondent shall advise whether additional responsive documents exist, whether all responsive documents have already been produced, and whether any supplementation can be provided voluntarily. The parties shall file and serve by September 24, 2026, a joint status report, or separate status reports if necessary, identifying which requests remain in dispute and the specific issues remaining for Court determination. The Court reserves ruling on the merits of these motions pending completion of these additional meet-and-confer efforts.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23: CV-21-003098 - MARTINEZ, SERGIO vs MALHI, SURJIT SINGH - Plaintiff's Motion to 1. Vacate Judgment as to R Millennium Transport Inc. Only; and 2. Amend Judgment to Reflect Continuing Validity Against Surjit Singh Malhi - GRANTED, and unopposed. The Court will sign the proposed order submitted by Plaintiff.

CV-24-008809 - TIMMINS, LACEY vs CLEARCAPITALCOM INC - a) Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from Rocket Mortgage, LLC and for Monetary Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED; b) Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Further Responses to Request for Production from Rocket Mortgage, LLC and for Monetary Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED; c) Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from ClearCapital.com, Inc. and for Monetary Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED; d) Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Further Responses to Request for Production from ClearCapital.com, Inc. and for Monetary Sanctions - HEARING REQUIRED; e) Defendant Clear Capital's Motion to Phase Discovery to Address Plaintiff's Standing and Individual Claims First - HEARING REQUIRED; f) Defendant Rocket Mortgage, LLC's Motion to Sequence Discovery - HEARING REQUIRED; a-f) HEARING REQUIRED.

Counsel shall appear to discuss any remaining issues before entry of the Court's order appointing a discovery referee in this matter. With regard to Plaintiffs' claimed financial inability in connection with the referee's fees, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have submitted insufficient evidence on this issue. In addition, based on the discussions between counsel, as reflected in email correspondence submitted by Defendants, the Court notes that Plaintiffs have expressed willingness to share in the fees of their counsel's preferred referee, Judge Morrow, who charges only 5% less than Judge Massullo in this regard. Therefore, the Court intends to enter an order confirming the appointment of Judge Massullo, with the requisite

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share