Matter of Nelly Mercado and Albert N Mercado Trust

Case Number

24PR00029

Case Type

Trust

Hearing Date / Time

Thu, 11/13/2025 - 09:00

Nature of Proceedings

Seven Motions to Compel; Motion Against Ryan Mercado to Deem Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Nelly Mercado's Requests for Admission; Accounting 2nd Account and Report

Tentative Ruling

HEARING:

(3) Respondents Tamara Skov and Shannon Dalton’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – General, Set Two; Request for Sanctions in the amount of $4,185, filed on October 2, 2025;

(8) Respondent Nelly Mercado’s Motion to Deem Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission, Set Two (requesting sanctions in the amount of $4,950), filed on August 12, 2025.

ATTORNEYS:

For Petitioner Ryan Mercado: Ryan Mercado, Self-Represented

For Respondent Nelly Mercado: Michel D. Hellman, Rimon, P.C., Claire K. Mitchell, Excello Law U.S. LLP

For Respondents Tamara Skov and Shannon Dalton: Jared M. Katz, Jemma Parker Saunders, Mullen & Henzell L.L.P., Margaret V. Barnes, Barnes & Barnes

TENTATIVE RULING:

(1) Respondents Tamara Skov and Shannon Dalton’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $2,260. Respondents’ motion to compel responses is granted. Petitioner Ryan Mercado shall serve full and complete, verified responses, without objections to Form Interrogatories – General, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One on or before December 11, 2025. The court awards monetary sanctions in the amount of $550 to be paid by petitioner to counsel for respondents on or before December 11, 2025.

(2) Respondents Tamara Skov and Shannon Dalton’s Motion to Compel Responses and Responsive Documents to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $2,260. Respondents’ motion to compel responses is granted. Petitioner Ryan Mercado shall serve full and complete, verified responses, without objections to Requests for Production, Set One, and responsive documents, on or before December 11, 2025. The court awards monetary sanctions in the amount of $550 to be paid by petitioner to counsel for respondents on or before December 11, 2025.

(3) Respondents Tamara Skov and Shannon Dalton’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – General, Set Two; Request for Sanctions in the amount of $4,185. Respondents’ motion to compel further responses is granted. Petitioner Ryan Mercado shall serve full and complete, verified responses, to Form Interrogatories – General, Set Two, on or before December 11, 2025. Petitioner’s objections are overruled except for privilege. Petitioner may assert privilege objections if, at the time his further responses are served, he serves a privilege log which provides sufficient information for respondents to ascertain and evaluate the 3 basis of privilege. The court awards monetary sanctions in the amount of $825 to be paid by petitioner to counsel for respondents on or before December 11, 2025.

(4) Respondent Nelly Mercado’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Form Interrogatories, Set Two (requesting sanctions in the amount of $3,300). Fespondent’s motion to compel responses is granted in part and denied in part without prejudice. The motion is granted as to Special Interrogatories, Set Two. Petitioner Ryan Mercado shall serve full and complete, verified written responses, without objections to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, on or before December 11, 2025. The motion is denied as to Form Interrogatories – General, Set Two. The court declines to award monetary sanctions.

(5) Respondent Nelly Mercado’s Motion to Compel Responses and Responsive Documents to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two (requesting sanctions in the amount of $3,300). Respondent’s motion to compel responses is granted. Petitioner Ryan Mercado shall serve full and complete, verified responses, without objections to Requests for Production, Set Two, and produce responsive documents, on or before December 11, 2025. The court awards monetary sanctions in the amount of in the amount of $825 to be paid by petitioner to counsel for respondent on or before December 11, 2025.

(6) Respondent Nelly Mercado’s Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court’s July 31, 2025 Order Regarding Requests for Production of Documents (requesting sanctions in the amount of $7,200). Respondent’s motion is granted. On or before, December 11, 2025, Petitioner Ryan Mercado shall serve a privilege log containing sufficient facts for respondent to evaluate the merits of any claim of privilege. On or before December 11, 2025, petitioner shall serve further supplemental responses that comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280, subdivision (a). The court awards monetary sanctions in the amount of $595 to be paid by petitioner to counsel for respondent on or before December 11, 2025. Respondent’s request for judicial notice of this court’s July 31, 2025 order is granted.

(7) Respondent Nelly Mercado’s Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court’s July 31, 2025 Order Regarding Requests for Admission No. 50 and Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 (requesting sanctions in the amount of $3,630). Respondent’s motion is granted. On or before December 11, 2025, Petitioner Ryan Mercado shall serve further supplemental responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 which, among the other requirements of subparts (c) and (d), state the names, addresses and phone numbers of the persons with knowledge of facts and the names, addresses and phone numbers of persons who have possession of the documents. The court awards monetary sanctions in the amount of $595 to be paid by petitioner to counsel for respondent on or before December 11, 2025. Respondent’s request for judicial notice of this court’s July 31, 2025 order is granted.

(8) Respondent Nelly Mercado’s Motion to Deem Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission, Set Two (requesting sanctions in the amount of $4,950). For all reasons stated herein, respondent’s motion is denied as moot. The court declines to award monetary sanctions.

Background:

(1) Ryan’s Verified Petition

The parties in this action dispute who can properly act as trustees for The Nelly Mercado (Nelly) and Albert N. Mercado (Albert N.) Trust, established on November 5, 1993, amended and restated on August 20, 2021 (Trust), as well as certain decisions that were made by persons acting as trustees. Petitioner Ryan Mercado (Ryan) is the grandson of Nelly and Albert N. and a residuary beneficiary of the Trust. (Pet., ¶ 3.) Nelly and Albert N. were the original co-trustees. (Pet., Ex. A.) (Note: Due to common surnames, the court refers to some individuals by their first names or abbreviations for clarity. No disrespect is intended.)

After Albert N.’s death and the death of a subsequent co-trustee, Nelly’s son Giancarlo Mercado (Giancarlo), Ryan contends that effective January 22, 2023, Nelly appointed another of Nelly’s sons, Albert William Mercado (Albert W.) – Ryan’s father – as co-trustee of the Trust. (Pet., ¶ 20.) On February 10, 2023, Nelly and Albert W. executed a notarized affidavit of change of trustee and recorded it. (Pet., ¶ 22, Ex. C.) On April 4, 2023, Nelly and Albert W. executed a notarized amendment of successor trustee, appointing Ryan as successor trustee upon the death or incapacitation of either Nelly or Albert W. (Pet., ¶¶ 3, 25, Ex. D.)

On September 26, 2023, Nelly purportedly resigned as trustee and unilaterally appointed private professional fiduciaries Tamara Skov (Skov) and Shannon Dalton (Dalton) as successor co-trustees of the Trust. (Pet., ¶ 29, Ex. E.) Respondents Skov and Dalton of Quinn Fiduciary Services purport to act as co-trustees of the Trust. (Pet., ¶¶ 7, 8.) Nelly appointed them without Albert W.’s consent or approval, which is not allowed under the terms of the Trust. (Pet., ¶ 34.)

Nelly is declining to fund the decedent’s trust which was required upon the death of Albert N. based on the advice of her neighbors that have a vested interest in Nelly’s financial decisions. (Pet., ¶ 47.) Without the consent or approval of Albert W., in July 2023, Nelly arranged for the sale of real property located in Sherman Oaks that was held by an entity wholly owned by the Trust. (Pet., ¶ 48.) Ryan has requested an accounting from Skov and Dalton but has not received one. (Pet., ¶¶ 49-52.)

Ryan alleges causes of action for (1) a report and accounting, (2) an order ascertaining trustees and instruction regarding removal of purported trustees, (3) for an order returning trustees fees taken by Skov and Dalton, (4) for damages for breach of fiduciary duty, (5) for adjudication of rights as to trust property, and (6) for an order compelling the trustees to fund the decedent’s trust. (Pet.)

(2) Nelly’s Verified Response

Nelly filed a verified response to the petition on March 25, 2024 (Nel. Resp.). According to Nelly, immediately following Giancarlo’s death, Albert W. and petitioner Ryan saw an opportunity to capitalize on Nelly’s grief and began attempting to take control of the Trust away from Nelly. (Nel. Resp., ¶ E.)

Nelly was made aware of Giancarlo’s death on January 22, 2023, one day after he died. (Nel. Resp., ¶ F.) That same day, without giving Nelly any time to process the death of her son Giancarlo, Albert W. (another of her sons) and petitioner Ryan (her grandson) allegedly told Nelly that she had to have a co-trustee and that it needed to be Albert W. (Nel. Resp., ¶ F.) In her grief, and under the influence of Albert W. and Ryan, and not understanding the legal ramifications of her decision, Nelly signed a document presumably drafted by the family attorney, which named Albert W. as co-trustee. (Nel. Resp., ¶ F.)

On April 4, 2024, while Nelly was still overwhelmed by the loss of her son, she was presented with a document naming petitioner Ryan as successor trustee in the event of Nelly or Albert W.’s death or incapacitation. (Nel. Resp., ¶ G.) Nelly alleges she has no recollection of signing the document but concedes it appears to have been executed. (Ibid.) As alleged by Nelly, she would not have, and did not, willingly named Ryan as successor trustee. (Nel. Resp., ¶ H.)

With the help of new counsel, Nelly appointed Skov and Dalton (of Quinn Fiduciary Services) as successor co-trustees of the Trust. (Nel. Resp., ¶ I.) Pursuant to that same document, Nelly resigned as co-trustee, leaving Skov and Dalton as the sole co-trustees of the Trust. (Nel. Resp., ¶ I.) Nelly specifically removed Albert W. as a purported co-trustee and Ryan as successor trustee, to the extent they claimed to have been validly appointed. (Nel. Resp., ¶ J.)

(3) Skov and Dalton’s Verified Response Respondents

Skov and Dalton filed a verified response to the petition on March 22, 2024 (S&D Resp.). Sokv and Dalton allege they are neutral, licensed professional fiduciaries appointed as trustees of the Trust via a document executed by Nelly as surviving settlor and trustee on September 26, 2023. (S&D Resp., ¶ A.) The document recites that Nelly has the authority to appoint respondents as trustees. (Ibid.) Relying on the truth and accuracy of such recitals, respondents Sokv and Dalton accepted appointment as trustees. (Ibid.)

At the time of their appointment, respondents Sokv and Dalton did not know, nor did they have any reasonable basis to suspect, that their appointment might be subject to dispute. (S&D Resp., ¶ B.) Since the date of their appointment, respondents have at all times acted professionally and in good faith to administer the Trust. (Ibid.)

Respondents Skov and Dalton concede they have a duty to account for the period of their administration, which began on September 26, 2023. (S&D Resp., ¶ F.) Respondents have no duty to account for any period predating their appointment. (Ibid.) Nonetheless, they have repeatedly offered to assist with the preparation of an accounting dating back to the death of Albert N. on October 26, 2022, which is precisely what petitioner demands. (Ibid.)

Similarly, respondents Sokv and Dalton have offered to assist in completing the post-death division of Trust assets between the decedent’s trust and the survivor’s trust. (S&D Resp., ¶ G.) Respondents are neutral, licensed professional fiduciaries. (S&D Resp., ¶ H.) The intra-family dispute is not theirs to fight. (Ibid.) There is no reasonable basis upon which respondents should be removed or punished for their good faith efforts to serve in the position to which they believed they were validly appointed. (Ibid.)

(4) The Discovery Motions

There are eight discovery motions filed by respondents against petitioner Ryan before the court. Four of the motions seek to compel petitioner Ryan to serve responses or documents in response to discovery requests. One of the motions seeks to compel further responses to form interrogatories. Two of the motions seek to compel compliance with a July 31, 2025 court order. One motion requests that the court deem admitted certain requests for admission because petitioner Ryan allegedly did not serve timely responses. Each motion requests monetary sanctions. Ryan filed an opposition to the motion to deem as admitted certain requests for admission. Ryan did not file oppositions to any of the other motions but did file a document styled as objections to multiple motions to compel filed by counsel for Nelly.

Analysis:

“A trial court must be mindful of the Legislature’s preference for discovery over trial by surprise, [and] must construe the facts before it liberally in favor of discovery. . .” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540 (Williams).) “Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

Although Ryan is self-represented, “mere self-representation is not a ground for exceptionally lenient treatment. Except when a particular rule provides otherwise, the rules of civil procedure must apply equally to parties represented by counsel and those who forgo attorney representation. [Citation.] . . . A doctrine generally requiring or permitting exceptional treatment of parties who represent themselves would lead to a quagmire in the trial courts, and would be unfair to the other parties to litigation.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.)

A party who propounds an interrogatory is “presumptively entitled to an answer to his interrogatory” and the responding party has “the burden of establishing cause to refuse … an answer.” (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 542.) “The trial court [is] limited to determining whether, for any objections timely interposed, [the responding party] had carried that burden.” (Ibid.)

“If a party fails to serve a timely response to interrogatories, then under section 2030.290, subdivision (a), it waives all objections and the burden shifts to that party to demonstrate that it is entitled to relief from the waiver.” (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 407 (Sinaiko).) The court, on a motion, can relieve this waiver if “[¶] [t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance … [and] [¶] [t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a)(1)-(2).) “The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).) “[¶] If a party then fails to obey an order compelling further response to interrogatories, the court may make those orders that are just, including … a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (Code Civ. Proc, § 2030.300, subd. (e).)

Similarly, a party who fails to serve timely responses to a demand for production “waives any objection to the demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product… .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) The court, on a motion, can relieve this waiver if, “[¶] [t]he party has subsequently served a response that is in substantial compliance … [and] [¶] [t]he party’s failure to serve a timely response was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a)(1)-(2).) “The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).) “[¶] [I]f a party then fails to obey an order compelling inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the court may make those orders that are just, including … a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) [¶].” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (c).)

Misuses of the discovery process include “[f]ailing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery [¶] [m]aking, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery [¶] [m]aking an evasive response to discovery [¶] [and] [d]isobeying a court order to provide discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d)-(g).) “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process … pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

(1) Respondents Tamara Skov and Shannon Dalton’s Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $2,260

Respondents Skov and Dalton argue that petitioner Ryan failed to respond to Form Interrogatories – General, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One. Respondents request that the court order Ryan to serve full and complete, verified responses to these interrogatories, without objections, within ten calendar days of the hearing on this motion. Respondents also move the court to award monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2023.010 in the amount of $2,260. Ryan did not file an opposition to this motion.

Respondents served on petitioner Form Interrogatories, General, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One, on May 27, 2025 by U.S. Mail and email. (Katz Decl., ¶¶ 4-5, Exs. A-C.) Ryan has not provided any responses to these discovery requests despite service on May 27, 2025 and follow-up meet and confer communications. (Katz Decl., ¶¶ 1-9, Exs. B-C.) Respondents are entitled to an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)

For all reasons discussed above, the court grants respondents’ motion. Petitioner Ryan Mercado shall serve full and complete, verified responses, without objections to Form Interrogatories – General, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One on or before December 11, 2025.

The court finds that sanctions are warranted because petitioner Ryan failed to respond to the discovery at issue and had ample notice and opportunity to do so. This constituted a misuse of the discovery process that caused Skov and Dalton to incur unnecessary attorney’s fees. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010; Katz Decl., ¶¶ 1-14.) The court awards monetary sanctions in the amount of $550, which equates to 1 hour at attorney Saunders’ rate of $550 per hour. (Katz Decl., ¶ 13.) The amount of sanctions requested appears reasonable under the totality of the circumstances present here.

(2) Respondents Tamara Skov and Shannon Dalton’s Motion to Compel Responses and Responsive Documents to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One; Request for Sanctions in the Amount of $2,260

Respondents Skov and Dalton argue that petitioner Ryan failed to respond Requests for Production, Set One, and request that the court order Ryan to serve full and complete, verified responses and responsive documents, without objections, within ten calendar days of the hearing on this motion. (Katz Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Skov and Dalton also move the court to award monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.300, subdivision (c) and 2023.010 in the amount of $2,260. Ryan did not file an opposition to this motion.

Respondents served on petitioner Requests for Production, Set One, on May 27, 2025 by U.S. Mail and email. (Katz Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Petitioner Ryan did not respond to these discovery requests despite follow-up meet and confer communications. (Katz Decl., ¶¶ 1-9.) Respondents are entitled to an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)

For all reasons discussed above, the court grants respondents’ motion. Petitioner Ryan Mercado shall serve full and complete, verified responses, without objections to Requests for Production, Set One, and responsive documents, on or before December 11, 2025.

The court finds that sanctions are warranted because petitioner Ryan failed to respond to the discovery at issue and had ample notice and opportunity to do so. This constituted a misuse of the discovery process that caused Skov and Dalton to incur unnecessary attorney’s fees. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010; Katz Decl., ¶¶ 1-14.) The court awards monetary sanctions in the amount of $550, which equates to 1 hour at attorney Saunders’ rate of $550 per hour. (Katz Decl., ¶ 13.) The court determines that this amount is reasonable based on the amount and complexity of the work involved in this motion and the circumstances before the court.

(3) Respondents Tamara Skov and Shannon Dalton’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories – General, Set Two; Request for Sanctions in the amount of $4,185

Respondents Skov and Dalton argue that petitioner Ryan failed to substantively respond to Form Interrogatories – General, Set Two, No. 17.1, pertaining to requests for admission that were answered without an unqualified admission. Ryan did not file an opposition to this motion. (Not. Non-Opp.)

Petitioner Ryan only served objections to Form Interrogatories – General, Set Two, No. 17.1, despite follow-up meet and confer correspondence. (Katz Decl., ¶¶ 2-4, Exs. A-E.) Ryan objected on grounds of undue burden and that the requests were premature and invade attorney work product. (Katz Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. D.) “An objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required.” (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 549.) The objecting party has “the burden of supplying supporting evidence” to justify the objections. (Ibid.) Because Ryan has failed to provide any factual or legal arguments justifying the objections, the court will overrule the objections except as to those based on privilege.

For all reasons discussed above, the court grants respondents’ motion. Petitioner Ryan Mercado shall serve full and complete, verified responses, to Form Interrogatories – General, Set Two, on or before December 11, 2025.

The court awards monetary sanctions in the amount of $825, which equates to 1 hour at attorney Katz’s rate of $825 per hour. (Katz Decl., ¶ 6.) The court determines that this amount is reasonable based on the amount and complexity of the work involved in this motion and the circumstances before the court.

(4) Respondent Nelly Mercado’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Form Interrogatories, Set Two

Respondent demonstrates that she served on petitioner Special Interrogatories, Set Two, on May 28, 2025 by U.S. Mail and email. (Hellman Decl., ¶¶ 16-18, Ex. B.) Respondent further demonstrates that petitioner did not serve responses to these interrogatories. (Hellman Decl., ¶ 18, Ex. B.) Ryan did not serve any further responses after the motion was filed. (Reply.) Respondent is entitled to an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)

For all reasons discussed above, the court grants respondent’s motion as to Special Interrogatories, Set Two. Petitioner Ryan Mercado shall serve full and complete, verified written responses, without objections to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, on or before December 11, 2025.

As to Form Interrogatories – General, Set Two, the underlying requests for admission are not attached to the moving papers or in the supporting declaration. (Motion; Hellman Decl.) Because Form Interrogatories – General, Set Two, No. 17.1 is tied to the underlying requests for admission, there is insufficient foundation to determine what information is being sought by Form Interrogatories – General, No. 17.1, and what discovery was served by Respondent. Respondent’s motion to compel is therefore denied as to Form Interrogatories – General, Set Two.

The court declines to award monetary sanctions.

(5) Respondent Nelly Mercado’s Motion to Compel Responses and Responsive Documents to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two

Respondent Nelly demonstrates that she served on petitioner Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two on June 5, 2025 by U.S. Mail and email. (Hellman Decl., ¶¶ 17-18, Ex. A.) Respondent further demonstrates that petitioner did not serve responses to these requests. (Hellman Decl., ¶¶ 17-18.) Respondent is entitled to an order compelling responses. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (b).)

For all reasons discussed above, the court grants respondent’s motion. Petitioner Ryan Mercado shall serve full and complete, verified responses, without objections to Requests for Production, Set Two, and produce responsive documents, on or before December 11, 2025.

The court finds that sanctions are warranted because petitioner Ryan failed to respond to the discovery at issue and had ample notice and opportunity to do so. This constituted a misuse of the discovery process that caused Nelly to incur unnecessary attorney’s fees. (Hellman Decl., ¶¶ 16-20.) The court awards monetary sanctions in the amount of in the amount of $825, which equates to 1 hour at attorney Hellman’s rate of $825 per hour. (Katz Decl., ¶ 13.) The court determines that this amount is reasonable based on the amount and complexity of the work involved in this motion and the circumstances before the court.

(6) Respondent Nelly Mercado’s Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court’s July 31, 2025 Order Regarding Requests for Production of Documents

Nelly filed this motion to compel compliance with the court’s July 31, 2025 order requiring petitioner Ryan to provide further responses to Nelly’s request for production of documents numbers 1, 2, 5-19, and 24-27 and to produce corresponding responsive documents and a privilege log. (Motion.) On July 31, 2025, the court executed an order that, among other things, required Ryan to “provide further complete and code-compliant verified responses . . . along with all nonprivileged responsive documents” and “a privilege log, containing sufficient factual information for Nelly … to evaluate the merits of the claim of privilege” by no later than August 21, 2025. (Req. Jud. Not., Ex. A; Mitchell Decl., ¶ 11; Sep. Stat.) Ryan did not serve further supplemental responses after the motion was filed. (Reply.)

Nelly argues that Ryan did not serve responses which comply with the court’s July 31, 2025 order notwithstanding the meet and confer communications. (Mitchell Decl., ¶ 11-20, Exs. C-F.) Nelly argues that some of Ryan’s supplemental responses state that he is withholding privileged documents, but he failed to produce a privilege log. (Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 12-15, Exs. C-D.) In each of Ryan’s supplemental responses, Ryan asserts that any responsive documents in his possession were already produced and then cites to his entire earlier document production, which Nelly argues is improper. (Mitchell Decl., Ex. C.) According to Nelly, Ryan continues to defy the requirement under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280, subdivision (a) that any produced document “shall be identified with the specific [document request] number to which the documents respond.” (Motion, p. 5.) Nelly argues that Ryan agreed to provide further supplemental responses, has failed to serve them despite meet and confer communications, and has still not complied with the order. (Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 14-19, Exs. D-F; Reply.)

The court finds that petitioner Ryan did not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280, subdivision (a) that “[a]ny documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond.” Ryan’s supplemental responses do not state which bates ranges are responsive to which demands. (Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 12-19, Ex. C.) Ryan’s supplemental responses to request numbers 6-19 and 24-27 also suggest that documents may have been withheld on the grounds of privilege. (Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 12-19, Ex. C.) For example, Ryan stated in an email dated September 4, 2025 that he would “identify the applicable RFP numbers and provide a privilege log where necessary” and that he continues “to assert objections to disclosing confidential information… .” (Mitchell Decl., ¶ 17, Ex. E.) However, no further supplemental responses or a privilege log were served. (Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 15-20, Exs. D-F.)

For all reasons discussed above, respondent’s Nelly’s motion is granted. On or before December 11, 2025, Petitioner Ryan Mercado shall serve a privilege log containing sufficient facts for respondent to evaluate the merits of any claim of privilege. On or before December 11, 2025, petitioner shall serve further supplemental responses that comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.280, subdivision (a).

The court finds that sanctions are warranted because petitioner Ryan failed to serve further supplemental responses in compliance with the court’s July 31, 2025 order after he agreed to do so in meet and confer correspondence. (Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 15- 20, Exs. D-F.) This constituted a misuse of the discovery process that caused Nelly to incur unnecessary attorney’s fees. (Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 7-23, Exs. A-F.) The court awards monetary sanctions in the amount of $595, which equates to 1 hour at attorney Mitchell’s rate of $595 per hour. (Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 15-20.) The court determines that this amount is reasonable based on the amount and complexity of the work involved in this motion and the circumstances before the court.

(7) Respondent Nelly Mercado’s Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court’s July 31, 2025 Order Regarding Requests for Admission No. 50 and Form Interrogatory No. 17.1

Nelly filed this motion to compel compliance with the court’s July 31, 2025 order requiring him to provide further responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 and request for admission number 50. (Motion.) The court’s July 31, 2025 order provides in part that Ryan shall “provide a further complete and code-compliant verified response” to request for admission number 50, and “[s]hould the further response be anything other than an unqualified admission, Ryan … is ordered to provide all the information called for by Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, with a properly executed verification.” (Requ. Jud. Not., Ex. A; Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 11-12.) Ryan did not serve further supplemental responses after the motion was filed. (Reply.)

Nelly argues that petitioner Ryan did not comply with the court’s July 31, 2025 order despite meet and confer communications. (Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 11-19, Exs. A-D.) Nelly argues that Ryan did serve a supplemental response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 in connection with his denial of request for admission number 50, but his response was incomplete because it did not fully respond to subparts (c) and (d) of Form Interrogatory No. 17.1. (Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 11-19, Exs. A-D; Sep. Stat.) On September 8th, Ryan emailed attorney Hellman stating that he was preparing further supplemental responses in good faith but would require an additional two weeks, until September 24, 2025, to provide them. (Mitchell Decl., ¶ 18, Ex. D.) Ryan has not served any additional responses. (Mitchell Decl., ¶ 19; Reply.)

The court has reviewed petitioner Ryan’s supplemental responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, subparts (c) and (d), and finds that the responses do not, as required, state the names, addresses and phone numbers of the persons with knowledge of facts or the names, addresses and phone numbers of persons who possess the documents. (Mitchell Decl., Ex. A.) Moreover, Ryan stated in an email dated September 8, 2025 that he was “preparing supplemental responses in good faith and intend[s] to provide them.” (Mitchell Decl., Ex. D.) However, no further supplemental responses were served. (Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 14-19.)

For all reasons discussed above, respondent’s Nelly’s motion is granted. On or before December 11, 2025, Petitioner Ryan Mercado shall serve further supplemental responses to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 which, among the other requirements of subparts (c) and (d), state the names, addresses and phone numbers of the persons with knowledge of facts and the names, addresses and phone numbers of persons who have possession of the documents.

The court awards monetary sanctions in the amount of $595, which equates to 1 hour at attorney Mitchell’s rate of $595 per hour. (Mitchell Decl., ¶¶ 15-20.) The court determines that this amount is reasonable based on the amount and complexity of the work involved in this motion and the circumstances before the court.

(8) Respondent Nelly Mercado’s Motion to Deem Admitted the Truth of the Matters Specified in Requests for Admission, Set Two

Nelly argues that Ryan failed to respond to Requests for Admission, Set Two, and requests that the court deem the matters stated therein as admitted. Nelly also requests monetary sanctions. Nelly’s Requests for Admission, Set Two were served on Ryan on June 5, 2025. (Hellman Decl., ¶ 17, Ex. A.) Ryan served his responses to the Requests for Admission on August 14, 2025, more than a month after they were due. (Opp., Ex. A; Reply.) Ryan served responses after this motion was filed but before the hearing. (Opp., Ex. A; Reply.)

Ryan opposed the motion on the grounds that he served the responses two days after this motion was filed. (Opp., p. 2.) Ryan argues that the motion to deem the requests admitted is moot pursuant to Code of Civil procedure section 2033.300, subdivision (b). (Opp., p. 2.) Ryan also argues that the requests exceeded the statutory allowance without proper justification and that he was prejudiced by opposing counsel being out of the office. (Opp., p. 3.) Ryan requests sanctions against respondent. (Opp., pp. 3-5.)

Because petitioner Ryan served responses after the motion was filed but before the hearing on this matter that substantially comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033,220, respondent’s motion is denied as moot. (Opp., Ex. A; Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Under the circumstances present here, the court declines to award monetary sanctions.

(9) Petitioner Ryan’s Objections to Multiple Motions to Compel (Filed by Excello Law LLP)

On October 21, 2025, petitioner Ryan filed a document entitled “objections to respondent’s multiple motions to compel and for sanctions (filed by Excello Law LLP) and notice of counsel conduct,” which was read and considered as part of the court’s evaluation of the discovery motions at issue in this order. (Pet. Objections.)

Ryan objects to how opposing counsel is being compensated and on the grounds that the motions filed by counsel for respondent Nelly are unmeritorious or unnecessary, and were filed without substantial justification. The points advanced by Ryan do not change the court’s reasoning and analysis herein.

Judicial Branch of California

PUBLIC NOTICE Reduced Hours of Operation – Clerk’s Offices

Notice: