Family Law Tentative Rulings

The following Tentative Rulings will become the ruling of the Court unless a party desires to be heard. If you desire to appear and present oral argument as to any motion, it will be necessary for you to contact the Judicial Assistant by telephone at (707) 521-6836 by 4:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing. Any party requesting an appearance must notify all other opposing parties of their intent to appear.

PLEASE NOTE: If argument is requested in this matter you may appear in person or remotely via Zoom. To appear via Zoom please see the Zoom information below. 

TO JOIN “ZOOM” ONLINE,

D21 – Family Law – Law & Motion Calendar

• MeetingID: 160 223 6856
• Password: 876992
• https://sonomacourt-org.zoomgov.com/j/1602236856

TO JOIN “ZOOM” BY PHONE,

• Call 1 669 254 5252 (same meeting ID and password as listed above)

TENTATIVE RULINGS

LAW & MOTION CALENDAR

Thursday, November 20, 2025 9:00 a.m.

Courtroom 21 –Hon. Kinna Patel Crocker

3055 Cleveland Avenue, Santa Rosa CA 95403

TO JOIN “ZOOM” ONLINE:

Meeting ID: 160-223-6856

Passcode: 876992

https://sonomacourt-org.zoomgov.com/j/1602236856

TO JOIN “ZOOM” BY PHONE:

By Phone (same meeting ID and password as listed above):

(669) 254-5252

The following tentative rulings will become the ruling of the Court unless a party desires to be heard.  If you desire to appear and present oral argument as to any motion, it will be necessary for you to contact the department’s Judicial Assistant by telephone at (707) 521 - 6836 by 4:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing. Any party requesting an appearance must notify all other opposing parties/counsel of their intent to appear.

1. 24FL01735 Strang v. Strang
   MOTION TO BIFURCATE MARITAL STATUS GRANTED. MARITAL STATUS IS TERMINATED AS OF 11/20/2025. FOR THE PROPOSED JUDGMENT, FORM FL-347 SHALL BE INCLUDED AND ALL BOXES CHECKED UNDER 5a-h.
    
2. 25FL00661 Pal v. Eren

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL BY G. BALI GRANTED. PLEASE PROVIDE ANOTHER PROPOSED ORDER MC-053 WITH ITEMS 3 AND 6 COMPLETED.

3. SFL67437 Cervantes v Medina
   MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE CONTINUED to the law and motion calendar of February 5, 2026 in Department 21 at 9:00 a.m. because Petitioner has not demonstrated service on the County of Sonoma Department of Child Support Services (“DCSS”).  Petitioner must serve the papers at least 16 court (business) days before the hearing.  CCP section 1005(b).  No later than 5 court days prior to the hearing, Petitioner must also file a proof of service showing such service.  CRC 3.1300(c).
4. SFL079921 Pang v. Parrish

MOTION GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, as specified further in this ruling.  The court GRANTS the motion as to those requests to which Respondent agreed to produce responsive documents but produced nothing, specifically 1-4, 8, 15, 16, and 19.  The court DENIES the motion as to the others to which Respondent agreed to produce documents and for which he in fact did produce documents, specifically, 6 and 14.  For the other items, those to which Respondent states no responsive documents exist, the court GRANTS the motion as those responses are insufficient.  The court GRANTS the request for attorney’s fees and costs of $4,940 but DENIES the request for additional sanctions based on Family Code section 271. 

Facts

            Petitioner on June 23, 2025 served Respondent with Form Interrogatories – Family Law, Set One and Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RFPs”), with responses due by July 25, 2025.  Declaration of Julie S. Levy re Meet & Confer in Support of Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Respondent (“Levy Dec.”), ¶2.  Petitioner received Respondent’s responses and documents on August 4, 2025.  Ibid.   Petitioner made an effort to meet and confer regarding responses which she found insufficient by sending Respondent a letter on August 25, 2025 which addressed her position.  Levy Dec., ¶3.  She received no response so sent an e-mail to follow up on September 17, 2025, proposing an extension, and only then did Respondent make contact, agreeing to an extended deadline of October 1, 2025 for providing new responses and an extended deadline of October 17, 2025 for Petitioner to bring a motion to compel.  Ibid. 

Motion

            In her Request for Order (“RFO”) and Motion to Compel Further Responses & Production to Request for Production of Documents, Set One and Attorney Fees and Sanctions, Petitioner moves the court to compel Respondent to provide further responses, and produce responsive documents, in response to the RFPs.

            There is no opposition, despite proof of service showing timely and proper service. 

Authority Governing Motions to Compel Further Responses

According to the Family Law Rules of the California Rules of Court (“CRC”) 5.2(d), and Family Code section 210, provisions applicable to civil actions generally apply to proceedings under the Family Code unless otherwise provided.  This includes the rules applicable to civil actions in the California Rules of Court and the Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), and specifically proceedings pursuant to the Civil Discovery Act set forth at CCP section 2016.010, et seq.  See, e.g., In re Marriage of Boblitt (2014) 223 Cal.App. 4th 1004, at 1022.

When a propounding party is dissatisfied with responses to interrogatories or requests for production or inspection (“RFP”), that party may move to compel further responses.  CCP sections 2030.300, 2031.310. The moving party must make adequate attempts to meet and confer.  Ibid.  Generally, once a timely, proper motion to compel further responses has been made, the responding party has the burden to justify objections or incomplete answers.  Coy v. Sup.Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221. 

            A party moving to compel further responses to a production request, however, must demonstrate “good cause" for seeking the items.  CCP section 2031.310(b)(1).  This requires a showing that the items are relevant to the subject matter of the litigation and a showing of specific facts justifying discovery.  Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Sup.Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.  Whether there is an alternative source for the information is relevant though not dispositive.  Associated Brewers Distrib. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 588.  Once the moving party demonstrates good cause, the responding party must justify its objections.  Kirkland v. Sup.Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.

A party has a duty to provide “complete” responses and to make them as straightforward as possible.  CCP sections 2030.220; 2031.210-2031.230.  Requests must be answered to the extent possible and an answer that contains only part of the information requested or which evades a meaningful response is improper.  Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783. 

            A responding party has a duty to make a reasonable, good-faith effort to obtain the requested information and if it is unable to comply, it must state that it made a reasonable and diligent search.  CCP sections 2030.220 2031.230; Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th 783.

            CCP section 2031.220 governs a statement of compliance with a production request.  It states, in full,

A statement that the party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling has been directed will comply with the particular demand shall state that the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, and related activity demanded, will be allowed either in whole or in part, and that all documents or things in the demanded category that are in the possession, custody, or control of that party and to which no objection is being made will be included in the production.

            CCP section 2031.230 governs responses containing a statement of inability to comply.  It states, in pertinent part,

A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand… shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify 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.

Further Responses vs. Production / Promised Documents

Where a party has failed to respond to a request for production or the responses are considered inadequate, the first step is not to compel production but, as with interrogatories, to compel a response, and only once a party has obtained a response agreeing to produce items may the party seek production in compliance with that response.  CCP §§ 2031.300, 2031.310, 2031.320.

Discussion

            Respondent presented two responses in the RFPs at issue, each response unaltered regardless of the RFP to which the response was submitted.  These responses contain no objections.

            The first response states simply that Respondent “will produce the Documents requested in his control and custody responsive to this request.”  For some of these, Respondent produced some documents, but not all those requested, and for some he provided no documents at all.  He provided no further explanation for these.  Petitioner contends that this response is insufficient because Respondent must specify if he is agreeing to produce the requested documents in his possession, custody, or control in whole or only in part.  She also notes that for some of the RFPs Respondent produced some documents but for others he produced nothing.  The responses themselves are sufficient.  Respondent states that he will produce those documents in his custody or control, without qualification.  He has therefore agreed to produce all such responsive documents.  For the responses to which he has produced some documents, Respondent has therefore represented that he has produced all such responsive documents in his custody or control.  However, Petitioner is correct that because Respondent has agreed to produce those responsive documents in his custody or control, he must do so, and for those RFPs where he produced nothing, he has failed to comply.  If he had no such responsive documents, he was required to explain that, as he did in the other response category at issue below.  He did not do so for these RFPs, however, and yet has failed to produce the documents without explanation.  Petitioner is therefore entitled to an order compelling Respondent to produce the responsive documents or a response that Respondent has made a diligent and reasonable search and has been unable to locate any responsive documents.  The court, to this extent, accordingly GRANTS the motion as to those RFPs to which Respondent produced nothing, specifically RFPs 1-4, 8, 15, 16, and 19.  The court DENIES the motion as to the others, specifically, RFPs 6 and 14.      

            In the other response, Respondent states, “After a diligent search, no such document responsive to this request exist.”  Respondent produced no requested documents.  Petitioner asserts that this is insufficient because it fails to specify, as CCP section 2031.230 requires, “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.”  Petitioner is correct.  This response fails to include this required statement.  The court therefore GRANTS the motion as to these, the remaining RFPs at issue. 

Sanctions

            For compelling further responses, the court shall impose monetary sanctions on the losing party unless that party acted with substantial justification, or other circumstances make sanctions unjust.  CCP sections 2023.010, 2023.030, 2031.310.  In order to obtain sanctions, the moving party must state in the notice of motion that the party is seeking sanctions, identify against whom the party seeks the sanctions, and specify the kind of sanctions.  CCP section 2023.040.  Sanctions are limited to the “reasonable expenses” related to the motion.  Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle of Los Angeles (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 262.

            Petitioner seeks attorney’s fees and costs of $4,940 pursuant to CCP sections 2023.010, 2023.030, 2031.310.  Petitioner gives little explanation for this amount aside from generally stating that this is the amount incurred, with $4,880 in fees and $60 in costs.  Attachment 9 to RFO, ¶12.  She also details the work performed in meeting and conferring, however.  Ibid., ¶¶10-11; Levy Dec.  The amount sought is facially reasonable for the amount of work and consistent with typical requests in similar motions in this court.  The court GRANTS this request. 

            Petitioner also seeks sanctions of $1,500 pursuant to Fam. Code section 271.  Fam. Code section 271 broadly authorizes the court to make an award of attorney’s fees and costs “in the nature of a sanction,” and “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of this code,” based on “the extent to which the conduct of each party or attorney furthers or frustrates the policy of the law to promote settlement of litigation and, where possible, to reduce the cost of litigation by encouraging cooperation between the parties and attorneys.”  The party requesting an award of attorney’s fees and costs on this basis is not required to demonstrate any financial need for the award.

            Petitioner has not presented sufficient basis for an award of additional sanctions beyond those already available pursuant to the Discovery Act provisions.  The court notes that despite being able to obtain discovery-specific sanctions for attorney’s fees and costs, a party may potentially also be able to obtain an award of sanctions based on this provision, depending on the circumstances.  The court, however, finds no justification in this case for imposing such an additional sanctions award.  Respondent’s responses, although deficient, are fairly close to complying in part and in other respects do comply, and there is no egregious or blatant failure to comply with discovery requirements or to be uncooperative or unreasonable.  The court DENIES the request for additional sanctions based on Fam. Code section 271. 

Conclusion

            The court GRANTS the motion in part, as specified above.  The prevailing party shall prepare and serve a proposed order consistent with this tentative ruling within five days of the date set for argument of this matter. Opposing party shall inform the preparing party of objections as to form, if any, or whether the form of order is approved, within five days of receipt of the proposed order. The preparing party shall submit the proposed order and any objections to the court in accordance with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.