DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
30-2023-01357386·orange·Probate·Trust
Hearing 3 months agoDENIED

Justin – Trust

MOTION COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES

Hearing date
May 27, 2026
Department
CM08
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Parties

DefendantJames Hicklin

Ruling

mix of objections and substantive responses. The Responses were unverified. The parties agreed to extend Petitioner’s time to bring this motion to 10/10/25. Efforts to meet and confer were unsuccessful.

As to form interrogatories 2.1(b) and (c), 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7: Respondent’s objections are without merit. Moreover, Respondent waived all objections by not timely responding to the discovery and accepting the conditional extension of time. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).)

As to form interrogatory 17.1: Respondent’s alleged response as set forth in Petitioner’s separate statement (ROA 131, 10:17-20) does not match the response provided in Respondent’s responses to form interrogatories attached as Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Anthony Marcus (ROA 147, Marcus Decl., Ex. 4, 5:14-15:1). Thus, the court makes no finding as to the substance of said response. The response must still be verified.

Respondent shall serve further responses to all form interrogatories, under oath and without objection, within 20 days of notice of this ruling, extended for method of service.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2030.290(c) and California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348, the court imposes reasonable sanctions of $1,750 on Respondent payable to Anthony Marcus Law Firm within 30 days of notice of this ruling, extended for method of service, or any later date as agreed upon by the parties in writing.

7 Martinez Cano - Guardianship; MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING 30-2025-01509000

Notice of Withdrawal filed 05/14/2026

8 Justin – Trust; 30-2023-01357386 MOTION COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES

Respondent James Hicklin’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to First Set of Special Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions (ROA 449) is DENIED as moot regarding the request for further responses.

On the issue of sanctions, Respondent should be prepared to explain more fully the relevance of the subject interrogatories, which inquire into the relationship, if any, between petitioner and his counsel prior to the retention of counsel for this proceeding. In the motion, Respondent

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