Gonzalez Gil v. Wu		CASE NO. 113CV251853
DATE: 16 January 2015	TIME: 9:00	LINE NUMBER: 9

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 408.882.2310 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM Thursday 15 January 2  He015.  Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.

On 16 January 2015, the motion of Defendants Xindi Wu and Kelly Yifei Wu (“Defendants”) to compel plaintiff to respond to supplemental interrogatories, set one, and supplemental request for production of documents, set one, and for monetary sanctions was argued and submitted.

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

1. Statement of Facts.

The complaint in this matter was filed on 26 August 2013.  The complaint seeks damages for personal injuries sustained by Plaintiff for an automobile accident that occurred on 25 August 2011 in the City of Mountain View.  Plaintiff was driving on State Route 85.  He was rear-ended by Defendants’ vehicle.  His vehicle was pushed into the car in front of him.

1. Discovery Dispute.

Defendants serve the foregoing discovery on 8 September 2014.  On 11 November 2014 and on 24 November 2014, Defendants followed up with “meet and confer” correspondence.[2]  To date, Plaintiff has provided no response to the discovery in question.

III.     Analysis.

1. Motion of Defendants To Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Supplemental Interrogatories, Set One,       and         Supplemental Request for Production of Documents, Set One

To prevail on its motion, Defendants must 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.  (See Leach v. Superior Court (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 or demand for inspection 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 Defendants 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 provided proof of service for the first set of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and inspection demands. The deadline for Plaintiff to respond has lapsed.  Plaintiff did not timely respond to any of the discovery requests.

Accordingly, the motion of Defendants to compel responses to the foregoing 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.

The motion of Defendants to compel Plaintiff to respond to supplemental interrogatories, set one, and    supplemental request for production of documents, set one is GRANTED.  Plaintiff shall respond to the discovery without objection and within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.

1. Sanctions.

Defendants make a request for monetary sanctions.  The request is code-compliant.  Code of Civil Procedure, § 2023.040.

Defendants assert they spent two hours (two hours at $150 per hour) preparing the moving papers with $90 in costs.  They anticipate spending two hours appearing at any hearing on this 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 Defendant does orally argue before the Court, the Defendant may bring up the issue of further sanctions at that time.

Plaintiff and his counsel are ordered to pay the sum of $390.00 to defense counsel within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.

1. Order.

The motion of Defendants to compel Plaintiff to respond to supplemental interrogatories, set one, and    supplemental request for production of documents, set one is GRANTED.  Plaintiff shall respond to the discovery without objection and within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.

Plaintiff and his counsel are ordered to pay the sum of $390.00 to defense counsel 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] “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] While meeting and conferring is not required for a motion to compel initial responses, the parties are always encouraged to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order.  The Court has concerns when there does not appear to be any effort to resolve discovery issues without Court intervention. See McElhaney v. Cessna Aircraft Co. (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 285, 289.