Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from the City of Modesto; Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production from the City of Modesto
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
necessary, direction from the reviewing court.
ORDER Plaintiff's Motion to Use Settled Statement on Appeal is DENIED.
CV-23-001227 -CARSON HYBRID ENERGY STORAGE LLC vs TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT - Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Demands for Inspection and for Sanctions - GRANTED.
The Court finds that Defendant's requested production is relevant to this lawsuit. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 2017.010)
Plaintiff's responsive production to the discovery requests at issue clearly demonstrate gaps or omissions in production as to documents that clearly exist and in respect of which Plaintiff should provide a declaration "detailing the efforts expended to locate the documents which appear to exist, but which have yet to be produced." (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc., (2009)174 Cal. App. 4th 967, 978; Gonzalez v. Super. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539)
To the extent that the omitted documents are not in Plaintiff's possession custody or control, Plaintiff must state so, and also state whether the inability to comply is " because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item." (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 2031.230).
Furthermore, it is unclear from Plaintiff's responses whether the omitted documents are those covered by the attorney client privilege or attorney work product privilege.
In light of Plaintiff's production, Plaintiff's responses to said discovery are incomplete and or evasive.
Defendant's motion is therefore accordingly granted.
Plaintiff shall therefore provide further Code-Compliant responses to Defendant's Requests for Production Set Two Numbers 1 and 2 within ten (10) days of the date of this order. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 2031.310).
Plaintiff shall also produce a privilege log in respect of Plaintiff's asserted attorney client privilege and attorney work product privilege. (Catalina Island Yacht Club v. Superior Ct., (2015) 242 Cal. App. 4th 1116
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?”
Monetary sanctions of $1,780 are imposed against Plaintiff for Defendant's reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 2031.310 (h)).
CV-24-000847 - ORTIZ, ALEJANDRO vs CITY OF MODESTO - a) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories from the City of Modesto- CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion.
b) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production from the City of Modesto - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion.
a) The Court is not inclined to find Plaintiff's Motion moot in view of the service of Defendant's Amended Responses thereto.
There appears to be some merit to Plaintiff's contentions regarding the deficiencies with said Amended Responses.
Therefore, the parties are ordered to meet and confer in person or via video to narrow down any issues in dispute remaining with Plaintiff's said Special Interrogatories following the service of Defendant's said Amended Responses.
Parties are reminded that discovery is meant to be self-executing and that a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with opposing counsel; rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants, (2007)148 Cal.App.4th 390; Clement v. Alegre, (2009)177 Cal. App. 4th 1277).
Accordingly, this matter is continued to July 17 th, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.
Plaintiff shall file a supplementary pleading no later than July 6 th, 2026, identifying discovery requests that remain outstanding.
Defendant's response shall be filed no later than July 10 th 2026.
b) The Court is not inclined to find Plaintiff's Motion moot in view of the service of Defendant's Amended Responses thereto.
There appears to be some merit to Plaintiff's contentions regarding the deficiencies with said Amended Responses.
Therefore, the parties are ordered to meet and confer in person or via video to narrow down any issues in dispute remaining with Plaintiff's said Special Interrogatories following the service of Defendant's said Amended Responses.
Parties are reminded that discovery is meant to be self-executing and that a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with opposing counsel; rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants, (2007)148 Cal.App.4th 390; Clement v. Alegre, (2009)177 Cal. App. 4th 1277).
Accordingly, this matter is continued to July 17th, 2026, at 8:30 am in Department 24 of this Court.
Plaintiff shall file a supplementary pleading no later than July 6 th, 2026, identifying discovery requests that remain outstanding.
Defendant's response shall be filed no later than July 10 th, 2026.
CV-25-000327 - DOORNEWAARD, JOSEPH vs SCONZA CANDY COMPANY - Defendant Sconza Candy Company's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Individual Paga Claim to Arbitration and to Stay Paga Representative Action Claim - GRANTED.
The Court finds that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties covering the instant dispute. (Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 233, 244; Martinez v. BaronHR, Inc. (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 962, 967).
The Court also finds that Defendant is engaged in interstate commerce. (Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson (1995) 513 U.S. 265).
The Court further finds that Plaintiff, as a member of the class of candy maker employees and based on his job description even if he "often bagged candy and placed it into shipping boxes for transport and placed refrigerated candy in the box truck for shipping " "actively" "engaged in transportation' of ... goods across borders via the channels of foreign or interstate commerce", nor did he play a direct and 'necessary role in the free flow of goods' across borders." (Vela v. Harbor Rail Servs. of California, Inc., (2026)120 Cal.
App. 5th 353; Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, (2022) 596 U.S. 450 at 458 (quoting Circuit City, Inc v Adams (2001) 532 U.S. 105 at 121; Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc., (2020) 971 F.3d 904; Betancourt v. Transportation Brokerage Specialists, Inc., (2021) 62 Cal. App. 5th 552; Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, (2024) 601 U.S. 2460; Rubio-Leon v. Fresh Harvest, Inc.,(N.D. Cal. 2025)812 F. Supp. 3d 944).
The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff is not a transportation worker within the contemplation of 9. U.S.C. section 1.
Plaintiff's claims herein are therefore not exempt from arbitration. (Capriole v. Uber Technologies, Inc., N.D.Cal.2020, 460 F.Supp.3d 919, affirmed 7 F.4th 854; Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, U.S.2024, 144 S.Ct. 905; Lopez v. Aircraft Serv. Int'l, Inc., 107 F.4th 1096 (9th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 1063, 220 L. Ed. 2d 387 (2025).
Therefore, the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1 et seq is applicable to the parties' agreement.
Additionally, parties may agree to the application of the Federal Arbitration Act. (Tuufuli v. W. Coast Dental Admin. Servs., LLC, (2026)117 Cal. App. 5th 1048).
The Court also finds that said arbitration agreement as a contract of adhesion with a limited review period provided to Plaintiff before signing same exhibits some degree of procedural unconscionability which requires a high degree of substantive unconscionability to render said agreement unenforceable. (OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho, (2019) 8 Cal. 5th 111; Civil Code section 1670.5; Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 102; Lim v. TForce Logistics, LLC, (2021) 8 F.4th 992; Ali v. Daylight Transp., LLC, (2020) 59 Cal. App. 5th 462).
The Court notes that as a party is deemed to have read and to understand the contents of a document he appends his signature to. (Baker v. Italian Maple Holdings, LLC, (2017)13 Cal. App. 5th 1152).
Moreover, an employer is not required to explain the terms of an arbitration agreement to an employee.
The Court finds that the arbitration agreement exhibits a modicum of bilaterality as either party may request arbitration.
The agreement also meets the minimum requirements of fairness - (1) a neutral arbitrator, (2) more than minimal discovery, (3) the issuance of a written reasoned decision by the arbitrator (4) does not limit Plaintiff's remedies, and (5) does not require Plaintiff to pay costs that would not be paid in litigation.