On July 10, 2020 a
Ruling on Submitted Matter
was filed
involving a dispute between
Garibay, Christian,
Ramirez, Jose A.,
Menor-Cruz, Moises,
Romero-Neri, Yolanda,
and
City Of Colton, A Government Entity .,
Garibay, Christian,
Ramirez, Jose A.,
San Bernardino County, A Government Entity,
for Wrongful Death Non-Motor Vehicle Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
SAN BERNARDINO SUPERIOR COURT
COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO r
4 g
g r:-
v
., K:
247 West Third Street J“ "
r”
San Bernardino, 92415-0210
California
JUV 2822
mVOthNA BY ”WM”?A “fHMN’MVI 9 )
L1H HWY
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
11 MOISES MENOR-CRUZ, CASE NO. CIVDSZO13878
Plamt'ff’
12 Ruling on: (1) Motion to Compel
vs. Further Responses to Special
13
lnterrogatories (Set 2); (2) Motion to
CHRISTIAN GARIBAY’ et a",
14 Compel Further Responses to Request
Defendants
for Production of Documents (Set 2)
15
16 Date: November 10, 2022
Time: 8:30 A.M.
17
Department: S32
18
19
20
21 After full consideration of the written and oral submissions by the parties,
22 the Court rules as follows:
23 Background for Current Motions
24 Set for further hearing today are the motions to compel further responses
25 to special interrogatories and to requests for production of documents. The
26 motions are opposed and replies have been filed.
27 At the original hearing on October 3, 2022, the Court continued the
28 motions for the separate statements to be filed. City has now filed the separate
Page 1 of 2
statements in support of both motions, and responsive separate statements
have been filed.
Discussion
The separate statements filed in support of the motion are deficient as
they do
COWNODUIAOONA
not contain the required statement of factual and legal reasons to
compel a further response; and, therefore, the motions are denied.
While Defendant City’s separate statements do identify the discovery
requests at issue and the text thereof (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule. 3.1345, subd.
(c)(1)), the text of each response (Rule 3.1345, subd. (c)(2)), they do not contain
the “statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses,
answers, or production as to each matter in dispute” (Rule 3.1345, subd. (c)(3)).
Without this information, the moving party has not satisfied its burden to
demonstrate that further responses should be compelled.
The opposing separate statement followed the correct format in identifying
reasons why further responses should not be compelled.
Ruling
Because the separate statements filed by Defendant City of Colton did not
mem-thAOOmVODU'l-AOJN—‘O
comply with the requirement of Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subdivision (c)(3),
NNNNNNNNNA—LAAAA—LAAA
the Court DENIES both motions.
Dated: November10,2022
//%A/w/4z flz/DQ»
Wilfre J. #neider, Jr. Jud
Page 2 of 2
Document Filed Date
November 10, 2022
Case Filing Date
July 10, 2020
Category
Wrongful Death Non-Motor Vehicle Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
SAN BERNARDINO SUPERIOR COURT COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO r 4 g g r:- v ., K: 247 West Third Street J“ " r” San Bernardino, 92415-0210 California JUV 2822 mVOthNA BY ”WM”?A “fHMN’MVI 9 ) L1H HWY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 11 MOISES MENOR-CRUZ, CASE NO. CIVDSZO13878 Plamt'ff’ 12 Ruling on: (1) Motion to Compel vs. Further Responses to Special 13 lnterrogatories (Set 2); (2) Motion to CHRISTIAN GARIBAY’ et a", 14 Compel Further Responses to Request Defendants for Production of Documents (Set 2) 15 16 Date: November 10, 2022 Time: 8:30 A.M. 17 Department: S32 18 19 20 21 After full consideration of the written and oral submissions by the parties, 22 the Court rules as follows: 23 Background for Current Motions 24 Set for further hearing today are the motions to compel further responses 25 to special interrogatories and to requests for production of documents. The 26 motions are opposed and replies have been filed. 27 At the original hearing on October 3, 2022, the Court continued the 28 motions for the separate statements to be filed. City has now filed the separate Page 1 of 2 statements in support of both motions, and responsive separate statements have been filed. Discussion The separate statements filed in support of the motion are deficient as they do COWNODUIAOONA not contain the required statement of factual and legal reasons to compel a further response; and, therefore, the motions are denied. While Defendant City’s separate statements do identify the discovery requests at issue and the text thereof (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule. 3.1345, subd. (c)(1)), the text of each response (Rule 3.1345, subd. (c)(2)), they do not contain the “statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute” (Rule 3.1345, subd. (c)(3)). Without this information, the moving party has not satisfied its burden to demonstrate that further responses should be compelled. The opposing separate statement followed the correct format in identifying reasons why further responses should not be compelled. Ruling Because the separate statements filed by Defendant City of Colton did not mem-thAOOmVODU'l-AOJN—‘O comply with the requirement of Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subdivision (c)(3), NNNNNNNNNA—LAAAA—LAAA the Court DENIES both motions. Dated: November10,2022 //%A/w/4z flz/DQ» Wilfre J. #neider, Jr. Jud Page 2 of 2