Corey M v. Damian Hernandez, et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 13 Honorable Daniel T. Nishigaya R. Belligan, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2240

DATE: June 3, 2026 TIME: 9:00 & 9:01 A.M. TO CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING, YOU MUST CALL (408) 808-6856 BEFORE 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY PRIOR TO THE HEARING. You must also inform all other sides to the issue before 4:00 P.M. the day prior to the hearing that you plan to contest the ruling. The Court will not hear argument, and the tentative ruling will be adopted if these notifications are not made. (Cal. Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1); Civil Local Rule 8.D.)

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 23CV417950 FREDI CUELLAR et al vs MATILDA Motion: Compel Further Responses TRAINOR et al Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 1 for tentative ruling. LINE 2 23CV417950 FREDI CUELLAR et al vs MATILDA Motion: Compel Further Responses TRAINOR et al Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 1 for tentative ruling. LINE 3 24CV446807 RYAN KOLSTAD vs SARAH EBRO et Motion: Sanctions al Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 3 for tentative ruling. LINE 4 25CV466415 Corey M vs DAMIAN HERNANDEZ, et Motion: Compel Further Responses al Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 4 for tentative ruling. LINE 5 25CV473157 Shabana Pirani vs Costco Warehouse Motion: Strike Corporation Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 5 for tentative ruling. LINE 6 25CV473159 Shabana Pirani vs Petrinovich Pugh & Motion: Strike Co et al Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 6 for tentative ruling.

Calendar Line 4

Case Name: Corey M v. Damian Hernandez, et al. Case No.: 25CV466415

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant XPO Logistics to provide further responses to interrogatories and requests monetary sanctions of $14,370.00.

The Court gleans from parties’ papers that the following interrogatories were in dispute: Special Interrogatories 47-52, Special Interrogatory 65-66, and Form Interrogatories - Employment Law No. 216.1.

With respect to Special Interrogatories 47-52 and Form Interrogatories - Employment Law No. 216.1, the Court finds that Defendant has provided further responses to all the disputed interrogatories. Plaintiff’s contention that Defendant’s responses to Special Interrogatories Nos. 65–66 remain deficient, based solely on Plaintiff’s disbelief regarding their completeness, is unpersuasive. The initial responses are no longer operative, and Defendant XPO has sufficiently addressed the relevant concerns. Thus, the Court finds that there is nothing left to accomplish by way of this motion, and there is nothing the Court can order that would or should result in more or different production. In this sense, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is MOOT.