Martinez vs. Target		CASE NO. 113CV254289
DATE: 1 August 2014	TIME: 9:00	LINE NUMBER:11

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 31 July 2014.  Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.

On 1 August 2014, the motion of Defendant Target Corporation (“Target”) to compel Plaintiff Patricia Martinez to produce documents in deposition notice and for monetary sanctions was argued and submitted.[1]

Plaintiff did not file formal opposition to the motion.[2]

Statement of Facts

This is a personal injury action that arises out of a slip and fall accident at Story Road Target Store in San Jose on May 6, 2013.

Discovery Dispute

On March 11, 2014, Plaintiff was served a Deposition Notice with Request for Production of Documents.  The deposition took place on May 6, 2014.  Documents requested in numbers 4 (medical records relating to injuries caused by the incident), 7 (writings reflecting prior and subsequent claims for personal injuries), 14 (a copy of the insurance card at the time of the incident) and 16 (writings regarding subsequent worker’s compensation claims or lawsuits) were not produced.

Plaintiff’s attorney agreed to produce the documents within 10 days of the deposition or to advise Defendant that there were no documents.  An email sent to Plaintiff as well as follow up email regarding the agreement sent on May 8 and May 19 have not been responded to.  To date no response has been received.

Analysis

A.     Motion to Compel Production of Documents

To prevail on its motion, a party needs to show is that the discovery requests were properly served, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served.  (Leach v. Super. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)

To establish that a party did not serve a timely response to interrogatories or demands, the moving party must show that the responding party was properly served with the discovery request or demand to produce, that the deadline to respond has passed, and that the responding party did not timely respond to the discovery request or demand to produce. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.080(a); 2030.060(a); 2030.290; § 2031.040; § 2031.260(a); § 2031.300.

A demand to produce documents may be propounded upon an adverse party in an attempt to seek relevant information. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.010. Absent an extension granted by counsel, a party must respond to each request for the production of documents within 30 days, unless the propounding party grants an extension. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.260. A code-compliant response states that the responding party will comply fully, comply partially while stating a valid reason for not fully complying, or that party will not comply while stating a valid reason for not fully complying. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.220; Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.230. A party may seek a motion to compel production when the adverse party fails to respond to the request for production in a timely fashion. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b).

Here, Defendant served discovery requests upon Plaintiff on 11 March 2014. Responses were due to be produced by 6 May 2014. Defendant has provided proof of service for the inspection demands. The deadline for the Plaintiff to respond has lapsed and the Plaintiff has not timely responded to any of Defendant’s discovery requests.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel production of documents to Defendant’s discovery requests is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is to produce documents within 20 days of the filing of this order.

B.     Request for Monetary 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.”  See Rule of Court 2.30.

Sanctions cannot be imposed for two reasons:

First, the California Code of Civil Procedure states that the Court shall impose monetary sanctions in many different situations. (See Code Civ. Pro. § 2030.290(c) (Imposing monetary sanctions for a motion to compel answers to interrogatories); Code Civ. Pro. § 2031.300(c) (Imposing monetary sanctions against losing party in motion to compel response to inspection demand)). However, where the Court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust” no monetary sanctions shall be imposed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a)). Where there are no opposition papers filed, the proper source of authority for monetary sanctions is Rule of Court 3.1348(a) as there has been no filed opposition.

Second, Defendant cited no authority whatsoever.

Therefore, as there was no opposition filed and Rule of Court 3.1348(a) was not cited by Plaintiff, monetary sanctions are DENIED.[3]

 

///

 

///

 

 

Order

Accordingly, the motion of Defendant Target for motion to compel Plaintiff Patricia Martinez for request for production of documents, is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is ordered to produce documents without objections within 20 days of the date of the mailing of this Order.

The request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

 

 

________________­­­____________ DATED:

_________________________­­­________________________ HON. SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN Judge of the Superior Court County of Santa Clara