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 Defendants Yi-Ching Pao and Oepic Semiconductors, Inc. to extend time to respond to Plaintiff’s written discovery was argued and submitted.

Defendant did not file formal opposition to the motion, but did file an opposition to the ex parte matter.[1]

I.       Statement of Facts.

On 19 September 2014, Plaintiff attempted to specially set this matter on order extending time to respond 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 Defendants have chosen to stand on the ex parte papers as no additional papers were filed.

A trial setting conference is scheduled for April 2015.

II.      Discovery Dispute.

On 6 August 2014, Plaintiffs served by hand twelve sets of written discovery, the first sets from Plaintiffs since the litigation began in 2013. Because these documents were served by hand, Defendants had until 5 September 2014 to respond to discovery. Counsel for the parties corresponded with Defendant seeking 60 more days to respond to the discovery, indicating, inter alia, that counsel would be in trial for much of October. Counsel for Plaintiff responded by eventually agreeing to a 30 day extension, making responses due while counsel was in trial, in exchange for mediation and other concessions.

Unable to agree to those terms, on 19 September 2014, Defendants requested ex parte relief to further extend time. This Court denied the relief ex parte, but set hearing for 3 October 2014.

III.     Analysis.

For good cause shown, a party may request a protective order from the Court asking for an extension to respond to written discovery. Code Civ. Proc. §§2030.260(b), 2031.260(b), 2033.250(b).

Defendants argue that the requested discovery is heavily burdensome by asserting that 12 sets of discovery were propounded by hand on the same day. While the twelve sets figure is certainly considerable, Defendants have not shown why it would be so burdensome to respond. Defendants provided no copies of the requested discovery and the Court has no record, beyond bare controverted assertions in a declaration, that the discovery is crushing.

The Court is willing to keep an open mind on this matter for the oral hearing, but on the record before the Court, it finds no good cause to extend the time to respond.

Defendants’ motion to extend responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery propounded on 6 August 2014 is DENIED.

IV.     Order.

Defendants’ motion to extend responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery propounded on 6 August 2014 is DENIED.

[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).