Category Archives: San Mateo Superior Court Tentative Ruling

FARZAD DEFAEE VS. SRINIVASA GONUGUNTLA

18-CIV-03452 FARZAD DEFAEE VS. SRINIVASA GONUGUNTLA, ET AL.

FARZAD DEFAEE SRINIVASA GONUGUNTLA
PEDRAM ZIVARI EMILY A. MAHONEY

MOTION TO COMPEL VERIFIED RESPONSES BY DEFENDANTS’ SRINIVASA GONUGUNTLA AND HARI POTHEPALLI TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s motion to compel verified responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents is GRANTED. To the extent that Defendants have not provided the verified responses, Defendants shall serve such responses within 10 days of this order.

Defendants contend the motion is moot because they provided signed verifications on September 3rd and 4th. Defendants, however, cite no authority in support of their contention that the motion is moot. There is, however, authority to the contrary. In Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants, 148 Cal. App. 4th 390, 408 (2007), the court concluded that untimely service of discovery responses does not deprive the trial court of authority to hear the motion.

Defendants request that no sanctions be imposed because defense counsel made good faith efforts to locate Defendants so they could provide verified responses. Counsel notes that private investigators were hired in May and August in attempt to locate Defendants. However, Defendants provide no information as to why those efforts were necessary. Ultimately, this fact does not provide substantial justification to deny the request for sanctions.

In Plaintiff’s reply, Plaintiff claims the verifications provided by Defendant Hari Pothepalli are defective because the responses to form interrogatories 2.6, 2.7, and 2.8 state that a response “will be provided.” Plaintiff requests, as a result, that the court issue an order compelling Defendant Pothepalli to provide verified responses, without objections, within 10 days. However, considering that Plaintiff contends Defendant Pothepalli’s responses are inadequate, Plaintiff’s remedy would be to file a motion to compel further responses from Defendant Pothepalli. Further, Plaintiff’s reply is supported by a declaration which is not signed by the declarant, Mr. Wolf. As a result, the reply is disregarded. Defendants’ sur-reply is also disregarded.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $2,090.00. Defendants shall pay this amount within 21 days of this order.