Iraola et al. v. Sunnyvale School District, Tran, Nguyen CASE NO. 113CV246876
DATE: 23 May 2014 TIME: 9:00 LINE NUMBER: 12
This matter will be heard by the Honorable Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian in Department 19 in the Old Courthouse, 2nd Floor, 161 North First Street, San Jose. Any party opposing the tentative ruling must call Department 19 at 408.808.6856 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM Thursday 22 May 2014. Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.

On 23 May 2014, the motion of Defendants Mark Tran and Karen Nguyen to respond to special interrogatories, set to, and demand for inspection, set to and for monetary sanctions was argued and submitted.

Defendants did not file formal opposition to the motion.

Statement of Facts

The complaint in this matter was filed on 24 May 2013. Plaintiffs allege that on 26 October 2012 At Cherry Chase Elementary School in the city of Sunnyvale, California, the minor Plaintiff George D. Iraola was injured on the school grounds due to inadequate supervision. An unsupervised minor child struck the Plaintiff causing him to sustain physical injuries, including a fracture of the femur.

Discovery Dispute

The foregoing discovery was served on 19 November 2013 and on 30 December 2013. Defense counsel served four reminder letters between 30 December 2012 and 25 February 2014 concerning overdue discovery responses. To date, no responses have been forthcoming.

The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are to serve code-compliant responses without objection within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.

Sanctions

Plaintiff makes a request for monetary sanctions. The request is not code-compliant.

Code of Civil Procedure, § 2023.040 states: “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.”

Defendants cite Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 2031.300 and 2030.290 without subsections. However, these subsections are inapplicable because plaintiffs never filed opposition to these motions.

Defendants also cite Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 2023.010 and 2023.030. Section 2023.010 defines acts that constitute misuses of the discovery process, and does not itself set forth any provisions regarding the issuance of a monetary sanction.

Next, section 2023.030 provides that sanctions may be imposed for misuses of the discovery process “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title.” As such, section 2023.030 does not provide an independent basis for an award of sanctions. In other words, to invoke section 2023.030 as a basis for sanctions, the moving party must first be authorized to seek sanctions under the provisions in the Civil Discovery Act applicable to the discovery requests at issue.

The request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

Order

The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are to serve code-compliant responses without objection within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.

The request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.