Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
24CV102649: AVALOS GUDINO vs 1545 MONTAIR APARTMENTS, LLC, et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by MARIA AVALOS GUDINO (Plaintiff) CRS# 252899960148 in Department 520
Tentative Ruling - 06/05/2026 Jamilah A. Jefferson
The Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by MARIA AVALOS GUDINO on 08/26/2025 is Granted in Part.
The Motion of Plaintiff Maria Avalos Gudino (Plaintiff) to Compel Further Requests for Production of Documents as against Defendant Teodula Corona (Defendant) is GRANTED IN PART.
As detailed below, Defendant shall serve further verified Code-Compliant responses without objections and corresponding documents to Plaintiffs Requests for Production of Documents 12, 32, 44-45 and 57 within 14 days of this Order to the extent that he has not already done so. Defendant shall also provide a privilege log.
Sanctions are awarded in the reduced amount of $525.00 against Defendant and counsel, jointly and severally, payable to Plaintiff forthwith. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.290.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND
In this habitability case, Plaintiff brought suit against the property owners and managers for her former residence for various tortious and contractual violations against her in violation of local and state tenancy laws. (Complaint). Plaintiff served her first and only set of discovery requests on January 23, 2025. (Nefcy Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. A.) As Defendants initial responses were deficient, Plaintiff brought Motions to Compel Further against each of the three defendants on August 26, 2025; the Court granted them in part and Defendant served amended responses on December 31, 2025. (Id. at ¶ 8, Ex. C.)
As with Plaintiffs prior motions to compel further, Plaintiff requests that the Court compel Defendant to respond further to her RFPss due to the responses still being defective such as by including objections.
LEGAL STANDARD
The responding party bears the burden of justifying any objection or failure to fully respond to an interrogatory. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255
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?”
Where the party propounding written discovery deems the responses unsatisfactory, the party may move to compel further responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310.)
DISCUSSION
Defendant first argues that the Motion is unnecessary as he will serve verified responses prior to the date of the hearing. However, Defendant offers no evidence that he has since done so, and the Court thus finds that this is not sufficient. (Reply Decl., ¶ 13.)
As noted in the Court's prior orders issued on March 27, 2026 concerning virtually identical Motions to Compel Further, Defendant argues that counsel acted in good faith to comply with the Courts prior order; however, no support in Defendants accompanying declaration is offered for why supplemental or amended responses have yet to be produced to the limited requests at issue. (Adjei Decl., ¶ 3.)
The responses served on December 31, 2025 consist of boilerplate objections primarily based on concerns relating to alleged third-party privacy concerns and undue burden claims as to the five RFPs at issue, and the reservation of rights to supplement the responses should additional information be ascertained. (Nefcy Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. C.)
Sanctions
Counsels stated hourly rate is $350 per hour. (Nefcy Decl., ¶ 15.) Counsel states that he has incurred 9.5 hours in preparing the instant motion, and anticipates incurring an additional 4 hours to review Defendants Opposition, prepare a Reply, and attend the hearing. (Id. at ¶¶ 17-18.) However, the Court finds that while the hourly rate is reasonable, the reasonable time incurred in preparing the instant motion, reviewing the opposition, preparing the reply and attending the hearing is 3 hours. The Court therefore GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff's Motion for monetary sanctions and awards $525.00 payable to Plaintiff forthwith.
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: Defendant is advised that failure to comply with this Order may result in the imposition of future sanctions, including evidentiary, monetary, or terminating sanctions.
NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the courts final order on June 4, 2026 unless, by no later than 4:00 P.M. on June 3, 2026, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or self-
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
24CV102649: AVALOS GUDINO vs 1545 MONTAIR APARTMENTS, LLC, et al. 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses filed by MARIA AVALOS GUDINO (Plaintiff) CRS# 252899960148 in Department 520 represented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling.
The subject line (RE:) of the email must state: Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number]. When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.
The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. Their email must be provided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed.
ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may give email notice that they will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.