Carla Dearmitt v. Solomon Asfaha

Carla Dearmitt v. Solomon Asfaha

CASE NO. 113CV257304

DATE: 1 August 2014

TIME: 9:00

LINE NUMBER: 15

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 Solomon Asfaha (hereinafter “Defendant”) to compel Plaintiff Carla Dearmitt (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) to answer to Form Interrogatories (Set One)[1] along with reasonable sanctions for attorney’s fee was argued and submitted.

Plaintiff did not filed a formal opposition to Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories.

All parties are reminded that all papers must comply with Rule of Court 3.1110(f).[2]  Plaintiff represents herself in propria persona.

Statement of Facts

The personal injury arises out of a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on December 14, 2011. Plaintiff seeks compensation for lost wages, medical expenses and loss of earning capacity.

Discovery Dispute

On 2 April 2014, Defendant’s counsel served Form Interrogatories (Set one) and Special Interrogatories upon Plaintiff.

By 9 May 2014, Defendant’s counsel received responses from Plaintiffs. However, Defendant noted that those responses were incomplete.

On 13 May 2014 Defendant’s counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff regarding the insufficient responses and requested more complete responses.

On 23 May 2014 Plaintiff contacted counsel via telephone and assured Defendant’s counsel full and complete responses to Form Interrogatories would be submitted by 26 May 2014.

To this date, Plaintiff has not completed the responses.


 

Analysis

I. Motion to Compel

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed either fails to responds at all or responds with objections or incomplete answers, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers (or further answers) to the interrogatories. (CCP §§ 2030.90, 2030.300).

The trial court has broad powers and responsibilities to determine what measures and procedures are appropriate in varying circumstances. (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App4th 424, 431; see also CCP § 128 (a)(5) [“judge has power to control conduct of judicial proceeding in furtherance of justice.”]) The trial court also has broad discretion in controlling the course of discovery and in making the various decisions necessitated by discovery proceedings. (Id. (citing Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378 [“Undoubtedly the discovery statutes vest a wide discretion in the trial court in granting or denying discovery.”]))

In Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409, the Court of Appeal recognized that, in exercise of its discretion and based on the circumstances of the particular case, the trial court is in the best position to determine whether a particular response does resolve satisfactorily the issues raised by a motion.

The motion of Defendant to compel Plaintiff to provide further responses is timely.

According to the Separate Statement by Defendant in support of the motion, the interrogatories in question seek identifying information of Plaintiff as well as itemization of the damages claimed.

The motion to compel Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set one) is GRANTED.

II. Monetary Sanction

Defendant requests monetary sanctions for the necessity of bringing the motion. The request is code-compliant.  In the declaration in support of the motion for sanctions, Defendant’ counsel is seeking $840.00.

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.

In support of the request for sanctions, Defendant’s counsel cites Code of Civil Procedure, § 2023.010(d), and Rule of Court 3.1348(a).  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.  Rule of Court 3.1348(a) states that in the event no opposition is timely filed or the requested discovery is provided after the filing of this motion, the court may award monetary sanctions under Discovery Act.

In the motion to compel responses, Counsel declares that he has incurred $390.

While counsel listed the time he anticipates he would spend for the preparation of reply and appearing at the hearing, the Court does not grant speculative sanctions.  Sanctions should be awarded only for expenses actually incurred.  (Tucker v. Pacific BellMobile Services (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1551.)

If Defendant’s counsel does seek to orally argue before the Court, the Defendant may bring up the issue of further sanctions at that time.

Accordingly, monetary sanction for failure to comply with the interrogatory request is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to pay the sum of $340.00 to Defendant within 20 days of the date of this Order.

///

 

///

Order

The Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants’ Form Interrogatories (Set one) is GRANTED.

The request for monetary sanction is DENIED.

 

 

________________­­­____________

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] “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.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Copy the code below to your web site.
x