Coastal Construction etc. v. Silicon Valley Homes, LLC		CASE NO. 114CV267957
DATE: 3 October 2014	TIME: 9:00	LINE NUMBER: 25

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 2 October 2014.  Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.

On 3 October 2014, the motion of Coastal Construction & Lumber Company (“Plaintiff “) to compel the deposition testimony and production of documents of Defendant Todd Hill (“Defendant”) was argued and submitted.

Defendant did not file formal opposition to the motion.[1]

All parties are reminded that all papers must comply with Rule of Court 3.1110(f).[2]

I.       Statement of Facts.

This action was filed on 15 July 2014 the complaint seeks damages for breach of contract.

Defendants Silicon Valley Homes, LLC and Todd Hill have each answered the complaint through separate counsel

The complaint alleges that between March 2014 and May 30, 2014, Plaintiff performed services to the Defendants pertaining to construction services, including but not limited to installment of fencing around properties in Santa Clara County.  The sum of $63,000 is owed.  Defendants have failed to pay the plaintiffs as required by the construction contracts.  On 30 June 2014, Plaintiff recorded mechanics lien perfecting Plaintiff’s in trust for services performed on each property.

Defendants Silicon Valley Homes, LLC and Todd Hill have each answered the complaint through separate counsel.

After the filing of this lawsuit, Plaintiff became aware of additional lawsuits recently filed against Defendant[3] with significant damage requests.

On 10 September 2014, Plaintiff attempted to specially set this matter on order shortening time by ex parte application.  This Court denied the application as no good cause for ex parte relief was shown.  However, this Court indicated that the matter could be set for hearing on this date.  All papers were due per code.

Apparently Plaintiff has chosen to stand on the ex parte papers as no additional papers were filed.

 

II.      Discovery Dispute.

Plaintiff notice the deposition of Todd Hill with production of documents set for 3 September 2014.  On 27 August 2014, Plaintiff attempted to confirm the deposition with Hill’s counsel.  The counsel indicated he was not available and requested rescheduling immediately.  Defense counsel agreed to provide alternate dates but never did.

On 3 September 2014 defense counsel said that an attorney for a separate defendant may be moving to consolidate several actions and suggested that Plaintiff wait until that was done to depose Mr. Hill.

III.     Analysis.

Code of Civil Procedure, § 2025.010 states: “Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010) and Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 2017.710), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. The person deposed may be a natural person, an organization such as a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, or a governmental agency.”

No reason has been offered to this Court as to why the deposition cannot proceed per code.

IV.     Order.

The motion of Coastal Construction & Lumber Company (“Plaintiff “) to compel the deposition testimony and production of documents of Defendant Todd Hill (“Defendant”) is GRANTED.  The deposition is to take place at a code compliant location within 20 days of the filing in service of this Order.

 

 

________________­­­____________ DATED:

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

 

 

[1] “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).

[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.”

[3] This Court assumes this Defendant is Todd Hill.