MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT UNITED GROUND EXPRESS, INC. TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME CVPS2304017 MIRAMORE, LLC VS TYLER HEARING RE: MOTION TO COMPEL Tentative Ruling: Granted.
No opposition filed.
The Motion of Plaintiff MIRAMORE LLC to compel the Attendance, Testimony, and Production of Documents at the Deposition of Defendant BRIAN SULLIVAN is granted.
Monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,162.50 are awarded in favor of Plaintiff MIRMORE LLC and against Defendant BRIAN SULLIVAN, payable within 30 days of this order, to reimburse the Plaintiff for fees incurred in having to move to compel Defendant to attend, testify, and produce documents. CCP §§ 2030.300(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a). Defendant BRIAN SULLIVAN is ordered to appear, testify, and produce documents at deposition within 30 days of this order.
Moving party to provide notice pursuant to CCP 1019.5.
2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT UNITED GROUND EXPRESS, INC. TO MELENDREZ VS UNITED PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES,
GROUND EXPRESS, INC. WITHOUT OBJECTION, TO FORM INTERROGATORIES-GENERAL (SET ONE) BY ANGELIQUE MELENDREZ Tentative Ruling: Denied.
Responding party to provide notice pursuant to CCP 1019.5.
This is an employment discrimination case. Plaintiff Angelique Melendrez (“Plaintiff”) suffers from leukemia, which is a disability that affects major life activities. On October 30, 2023, Plaintiff was hired by Defendants United Ground Express, Inc. (“Defendant”) and United Airlines, Inc. (collectively “United”). Plaintiff alleges that during the application process, she informed United, and its human resources agent, Defendant Kevin Tomas (“Tomas”), about her disability and need for accommodation.
Plaintiff was required to obtain an Employee Status Form (“ESF”) from her doctor. On November 14, 2023, Plaintiff provided the complete ESF, which included restrictions of not lifting more than 45 pounds, a maximum of four hours standing, and a maximum of six hours walking, kneeling, squatting, or crawling. At the end of November, Plaintiff was called into a meeting with Tomas, Defendant Donald Miller (“Miller”) and other supervisors, at which time she was told that United could not permanently accommodate her restrictions.
Plaintiff received a revised ESF from her oncologist with limited, temporary restriction. She began training on December 3, 2023, but was the told to stay back from training on December 6. On December 7, 2023, Miller told her via text message that United would not move forward with her employment to disclose her disability prior to employment.
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?”
On February 5, 2025, Plaintiff filed her Complaint. She asserts ten causes of action for: (1) Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; (2) Hostile Work Environment in Violation of FEHA; (3) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (4) Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation in Violation of FEHA; (5) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process; (6) Failure to Prevent Discrimination; Harassment and Retaliation; (7) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (8) Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress; (9) Whistleblower Retaliation; and (10) Negligent Hiring, Supervision and Retention.
Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories (“FROGs”) 12.2 and 12.3, which request the identities of witnesses interviewed by Defendant and written or recorded statements made as part of the interviews. Plaintiff argues that all the information sought is relevant. Plaintiff argues that the responses are evasive and improperly incorporate other responses. Plaintiff argues that the objections are boilerplate and meritless. Plaintiff argues that the identities of witnesses are not privileged.
Defendant argues its responses are sufficient because there is no non-privileged responsive information. Defendant argues that the information is protected by the work product doctrine because the identities of witnesses interviewed by counsel and the statements made would reflect counsel’s impressions of the case. Defendant argues that providing a privilege log would defeat the privilege. Defendant argues that incorporating responses to identical interrogatories is proper. Defendant argues that the Motion is untimely and the meet and confer was insufficient.
Motion to Compel Further Response(s)
Any party may obtain discovery by propounding to any other party written interrogatories. (CCP §2030.010(a).) The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath to each interrogatory by: (1) an answer containing the information sought to be discovered; (2) an exercise of the party’s option to produce writings; or (3) an objection to the particular interrogatory. (CCP § 2030.210(a)(1)-(3).)
A party propounding interrogatories may move for an order compelling a further response if the party deems that an answer is evasive or incomplete or an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (CCP §2030.300(a)(3).) Unless notice of the motion to compel further responses is given within 45 days of the service of the responses, the propounding party waives the right to compel further responses. (CCP. § 2030.300(c).)
Here, Defendant served its initial responses to Plaintiff’s General Form Interrogatories on June 24, 2025. (Decl. of Gilanians, ¶ 2; Ex. 1.) On February 6, 2026, Defendant served supplemental responses to the FROGs. (Id at ¶ 3; Ex. 2.) Thus, the deadline to file a motion to compel further responses to the supplementals was March 23, 2026. While it appears that on January 30, 2026, the parties agreed to extend the motion deadline to February 20, 2026 based on the February 6 production, there is no evidence of additional extensions. (See Decl. of Gilanians, Ex. 3.) Consequently, because the Motion was not filed until April 21, 2026, it must be denied as untimely.
3. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AYALA VS CITY OF CVPS2502810 ON COMPLAINT OF JUAN AYALA BY COACHELLA CITY OF COACHELLA Tentative Ruling: Denied.
Responding party to provide notice pursuant to CCP 1019.5.
This is a premises liability action brought by Plaintiff Juan against City of Coachella, the Coachella Valley Soccer League, and HERC Rentals, Inc. On December 11, 2023, Plaintiff was playing in an organized soccer match as part of the Coachella Valley Soccer League at 85857 Avenue 53, Coachella, California. (Complaint ¶¶ 2, 11.) While running along the sideline of the field and attempting to head the ball, Plaintiff collided with a light on the side of the field. (¶12.) Plaintiff alleges the light was negligently placed close to field which created a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of injury to the players. (¶13.) The operative Complaint alleges negligence, premises liability, and dangerous condition of public property.
Defendant City of Coachella (“City”) brings the instant motion for summary judgment for the only claim brought against it – dangerous condition of public property. City argues the field where Plaintiff was injured is owned by Armtec Defense Products Company who leased the property to the City. The City then sub-leased the proper to the Coachella Valley Soccer League and Coachella Youth Sports Association Soccer (two non-profit organizations). City argues the sublease grants all management, control, and maintenance responsibilities of the field to the two nonprofit entities.
As a result, City argues it did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care to ensure the soccer fields were used in a manner to avoid injury. City also argues it did not manage the light tower that Plaintiff collided with. Rather, City contends the Coachella Valley Soccer League admits responsibility for placing the light tower in the location where it injured Plaintiff.
Plaintiff opposes the motion. Plaintiff notes the Master Lease requires the City to “manage and control” the property and argues the Master Lease agreement makes the City responsible for management and control of the property. Plaintiff argues that, in the event the court finds the evidence presented does not create a triable issue of material fact, Plaintiff is entitled to a continuance to conduct further discovery regarding the lease materials and Armtec’s Person Most Qualified.
In Reply, Defendant argues Plaintiff’s breach of contractual duty argument is misplaced. Defendant also argues City had insufficient control based on the business relationship that had been established between the contracting parties.
Summary Judgment/Adjudication
Summary judgment is granted when a moving party establishes the right to entry of judgment as a matter of law. (CCP § 437c(c).) The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact. (CCP § 437c(p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) Defendant, as the moving party, has the burden to show either that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. (CCP §437c(p)(2).) Defendant can meet their burden by showing either: (1) affirmative evidence that shows an element of the claim cannot be established; or (2) showing an absence of evidence on a critical element of Plaintiff’s claim.