October 31, 2025

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:

CV-23-005512 – DIAZ, MARLENE vs FRALEY, REBECCA – a) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Marlene Diaz to Provide Complete, Written, Verified Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; and for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2,660.00 -– GRANTED, and unopposed; b) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Marlene Diaz to Provide Complete, Written, Verified Responses to Requests for Production, Set One; and for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2, 660.00 – GRANTED, and unopposed; c) Defendant’s Motion for Order Establishing Admissions and for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $2,860.00 - GRANTED, and unopposed.

a) The Court finds that Plaintiff has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).)  Therefore, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b).)

The Court further finds that Defendant is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(c), 2023.010 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $460 are awarded against Plaintiff, payable to Defendant’s counsel.

b) The Court finds that Plaintiff has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).)  Therefore, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objection, to Defendant’s Requests for Production, Set One, within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(b).)

The Court further finds that Defendant is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(c), 2023.010 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $460 are awarded against Plaintiff, payable to Defendant’s counsel.

c) The Court finds that Plaintiff has entirely failed to respond to the subject discovery and all objections have been waived. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(a).)  Accordingly, the Court has no discretion but to grant Defendant’s request.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c); St. Mary’s v. Superior Court (Schellenberg) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 777-778.). The matters contained in Request for Admissions, Set One, are deemed admitted. 

The Court further finds that Defendant is entitled to an award of monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c), 2023.010 et seq.) Therefore, monetary sanctions in the amount of $460 are awarded against Plaintiff, payable to Defendant’s counsel.

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:

CV-23-004672 – ROBERTS, ROSHAUN L vs VILLA, ELDA FUENTES – a) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Special Interrogatories, Set One and for Order Imposing Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant – DENIED; b) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One and for Order Imposing Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant’s Counsel – DENIED; c) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Request for Admissions, Set One and for Order Imposing Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant – DENIED.

a-c) Trial in this case was originally scheduled to begin on October 21, 2025, and did begin on October 28, 2025. The hearing on these discovery motions is therefore barred pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2024.020. Accordingly, the motions are DENIED.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John D. Freeland in Department 23:

CV-21-005103 – GRAYS, WILLIE JR vs LIE, MINGHUI, MD – a) Defendant Navneet K. Gill, M.D.’s Motion for Summary Judgment – GRANTED; b) Defendant Minghui Liu, M.D.’s Motion for Summary Judgment – GRANTED.

a-b) Defendant, as the moving party, has met the burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment herein as a matter of law on the grounds that the instant action was not timely filed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 340.5.)  The burden then shifts to Plaintiff to submit admissible evidence demonstrating a material factual dispute preventing judgment for Defendant as a matter of law. Plaintiff has failed to meet this burden. Specifically, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate the existence of a material factual dispute with regard to his former counsel’s failure to timely serve the notices required by Code Civ. Proc. § 364, which would have effectively extended the limitations period for submission of the Complaint herein. Plaintiff’s purported evidence consists only of speculation and conjecture on this issue and is, therefore, insufficient to establish a material factual dispute herein. (See, e.g. Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4^th 151, 163.)

CV-22-005623 – DOE, JOHN vs ROE 1 DISTRICT – Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint - GRANTED.

Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated grounds for the proposed amendment. The Court has broad discretion in this area and there is a strong policy in favor of liberal allowance of amendments. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 473(a)(1), 576.)

Plaintiff shall submit the Third Amended Complaint for filing within 10 days.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:

CV-24-000235 – PRIEST, SHAWNTE vs HOGAN, THOMAS P – Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order, to Quash Deposition Subpoena, and to Stay Deposition of Danielle Huerta – DENIED.

Based on the Court’s review of the motion, there were insufficient attempts to resolve the issues raised in the motion informally via “meet and confer”.

The motion must also be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve informally the issues presented by the motion before filing the motion. [CCP §§ 2016.040, 2030.300(b); Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (Frye) (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 138, fn. 9- declaration must accompany notice of motion, along with all other documents supporting notice of motion]. The purpose of the meet and confer requirement is to force lawyers to reexamine their positions, and to narrow their discovery disputes to the irreducible minimum, before calling upon the court to resolve the matter. It also enables parties and counsel to avoid sanctions that are likely to be imposed if the matter comes before the court. [Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1016] (Emphasis the Court’s.)

Not only is there insufficient meet and confer demonstrated, but Defendants don’t meet their burden of proof regarding the motion for a protective order related to attorney/client privilege and attorney work product.

The burden is on the moving party to establish “good cause” for whatever relief is requested: “Generally, a deponent seeking a protective order will be required to show that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness involved in … [the discovery procedure] clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” [Emerson Elec. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (Grayson) (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1110; see Nativi v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 318 - burden not met by “entirely conclusory” declaration that “lacked any factual specificity”]

Here Defendants’ counsel argues that because of the unique (former) relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants, it’s possible that attorney/client privilege and or attorney work product may be an issue at Huerta’s deposition.  However, the Court has no specific details or facts to consider and therefore no way to enter a protective order limiting the scope of Huerta’s deposition.  It’s entirely possible that some of Plaintiff’s questions for Huerta will be objectionable on this basis – and Defendants can object to those questions at the deposition. Then if Plaintiff seeks further responses, the Court will be better positioned to address any attorney/client privilege and work product issues.

Last, the Court declines to award any monetary sanctions in this matter as it feels both Plaintiff and Defendants failed to make any real effort to negotiate – as opposed to argue about - the disputed issues.  Counsel are, however, put on notice that the Court expects any future discovery disputes in this case to involve sincere, good faith meet and confer efforts.  [See e.g. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Sup.Ct. (Golsch) (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 326, 331-334 – (because of personal dislike for each other, both counsel failed to make any real effort to negotiate the disputed issues. The court could have refused to rule on the motion to compel because of moving party's failure to meet and confer; but in order to resolve the matter, it heard the motion, found both lawyers to have violated the requirement, and ordered each to pay $150 out of his own pocket to the other lawyer's client).]

CV-25-003236 – WELLS FARGO BANK NA vs MFOUD, MVELLY – Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions – GRANTED, and unopposed.  The Requests for Admission Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank served on Defendant Mvelly Mfoud on July 1, 2025, are hereby DEEMED ADMITTED.

CV-25-006617 – EXPLOITED MILK PRODUCERS INC vs ROSS, KAREN – Plaintiff’s Motion for Domenic P. Aulisi’s Verified Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice - GRANTED. The application meets the requirements of Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40. The Court will sign the proposed order.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:

***There are no tentative rulings in Department 19***