Cardema v. Ramirez		CASE NO. 113CV247211
DATE: 22 August 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 21 August 2014.  Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.

On 22 August 2014, the motion of Defendants  Sara Ramirez and Uriel Angel Gonzalez, Jr. (“Defendants”) to compel plaintiff to serve verified sponsors to Defendants’ special interrogatories, set one, and request for production, set one, and for monetary sanctions was argued and submitted.[1]

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

All parties are reminded that all papers must comply with Rule of Court 3.1110(f).[3]

Statement of Facts

Plaintiff claims to have been injured as a result of a motor vehicle accident which took place on 3 June 2011.  The accident was at the intersection of Piedmont and Prince of Wales in the city of San Jose.

The complaint was filed on 31 May 2013.  Defendants answered the complaint on 30 April 2014.

I.             Discovery Dispute

128 April 2014, Defendants served their special interrogatories, set one, and request for production, set one.  On16 June 2014, defense counsel wrote to counsel for Plaintiff and demanded the verified answers to the foregoing discovery.  Plaintiff never responded to the letter nor did he provide discovery responses.

II.            Analysis

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.)

If a party to whom interrogatories or demand for inspection are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling responses. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(b) (interrogatories) § 2031.300(b) (response to demand).The party who fails to serve a timely response waives any right to object to the interrogatories or demands, including ones based on privilege or on the protection of work product. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290 (a) (interrogatories) § 2031.300(a) (response to demand for production).

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.

Defendants have provided proof of service for the first set of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and inspection demands. The deadline for the Plaintiff to respond has lapsed and the Plaintiff has not timely responded to any of Defendants’ discovery requests.

Accordingly Defendants’ motion to compel responses to Defendants’ discovery requests is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified answers without objection within 20 days after the date of the filing of this Order.

III.         Sanctions

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.

The request is code compliant.

Plaintiff seeks $490 in attorneys fees for the preparation of an attendance at the hearing of this motion.  Defendants also seeks sanctions for time possibly spent arguing the motion. The Court does not grant speculative sanctions.  Sanctions should be awarded only for expenses actually incurred.  (See Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1551.)  If Plaintiff does orally argue before the Court, the Defendant may bring up the issue of further sanctions at that time.

Plaintiff’s director to pay the sum of $290 to counsel for Defendants within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.

IV.        Order

Defendant’s motion to compel responses to Defendants’ discovery requests is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified answers special interrogatories, set one, and request for production, set one, without objection and within 20 days after the date of the filing of this Order.

Plaintiff’s director to pay the sum of $290 to counsel for Defendants within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.

 

 

________________­­­____________ DATED:

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

 

[1] Rule of Court 3.1345(d) states: “A motion concerning interrogatories, inspection demands, or admission requests must identify the interrogatories, demands, or requests by set and number.”

[2] “The failure to file a written opposition or to appear at a hearing or the voluntary provision of discovery shall not be deemed an admission that the motion was proper or that sanctions should be awarded.”  Rule of Court 3.1348(b).

[3] “Each exhibit must be separated by a hard 81/2 x 11 sheet with hard paper or plastic tabs extending below the bottom of the page, bearing the exhibit designation. An index to exhibits must be provided. Pages from a single deposition and associated exhibits must be designated as a single exhibit.”