| Washington v. Turici Investments & Farley | CASE NO. 112CV218672 | |
| DATE: 31 October 2014 | TIME: 9:00 | LINE NUMBER: 6 |
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 30 October 2014. Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.
On 31 October 2014, the motion of Defendant Justine Farley (“Defendant”) to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Discovery Responses and for monetary sanctions was argued and submitted.
Plaintiff did not file formal opposition to the motion.[1]
All parties are reminded that “[a] motion concerning interrogatories, inspection demands, or admission requests must identify the interrogatories, demands, or requests by set and number.” Rule of Court 3.1345(d).
- Statement of Facts.
This case arises from a Complaint filed by James Washington (“Plaintiff”) against his landlord Justine Farley (“Defendant”). Plaintiff’s Complaint stems from claims of alleged failure to repair a gas wall heater in a rental unit. As a result, Plaintiff claims that he inhaled toxic fumes from the heater, allegedly resulting in personal injury.
- Discovery Dispute.
The present dispute began when Defendant served Plaintiff with Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents Set One. (Sheng Decl. ¶ 2.) Defendant claims that Plaintiff’s responses were due by 22 May 2014, but did not hear from Plaintiff until 29 May 2014, where Plaintiff’s counsel called to request an extension of time to respond. (Sheng Decl. ¶ 3-4.) Defendant’s attorney responded on 30 May 2014, and informed Plaintiff’s counsel that the responses were overdue, and to serve the responses by 12 June 2014. (Sheng Decl. ¶ 5.)
No responses were served by 12 June 2014. (Sheng Decl. ¶ 6.) On 13 August 2014, Plaintiff’s counsel served responses to Defendant’s discovery requests, after Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. (Sheng Decl. ¶ 7, 9.) However, Defendant alleges that the responses were completely devoid of substantive information. (Sheng Decl. ¶ 11.)
On 29 August 2014, correspondence was directed to Plaintiff’s counsel describing the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s discovery responses, and requested amended and verified responses within 10 days. (Sheng Decl. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff failed to comply with Defendant’s correspondence, and has yet to provide Defendant with any amended discovery responses. (Sheng Decl. ¶ 13-14.) Defendant has stated that the discovery responses are necessary for them to determine any legal defenses on this case.
III. Analysis.
- Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
A party propounding interrogatories may move for an order compelling further responses if that party deems an objection is without merit or too general or a response is incomplete. (Code of Civil Procedure, § 2030.300(a).)
The statute does not require any showing of good cause in support of a motion. (See Code of Civil Procedure, § 2030.300; see also Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221.) The burden is on the propounding party to obtain a judicial determination of the validity of any objection by moving to compel a further response.
However, the responding party has the burden to justify any objections or failure to fully answer. (Coy v. Superior Court, supra, 58 Cal.2d at pp. 220-221.)
Defendant filed a Separate Statement which makes a prima facie case supporting the motion. The contentions are unchallenged. The motion of the Defendant to Compel Further Responses is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall respond to the discovery without objection and within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.
- Sanctions.
Defendant makes a request for monetary sanctions. The request is not code-compliant. Code of Civil Procedure, § 2023.040.
In support of the request for sanctions, Defendant cites Code of Civil Procedure, § 2023.030 and § 2030.290(c). Section 2023.030 provides that sanctions may be imposed for misuses of the discovery process “[t]o the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title.” As such, section 2023.030 does not provide an independent basis for an award of sanctions. In other words, to invoke section 2023.030 as a basis for sanctions, the moving party must first be authorized to seek sanctions under the provisions in the Civil Discovery Act applicable to the discovery requests at issue.
Concerning the Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses demand, the Plaintiff has not “unsuccessfully opposed” the Defendant’s motions (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290; 2031.300) since no opposition was filed. Therefore, reliance on § 2030.290(c), §2023.030(a), and §2031.300 for monetary sanctions is inapplicable in this case because the Plaintiff has not unsuccessfully opposed the Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses. The proper authority for monetary sanctions in this case would be Rule of Court 3.1348(a), where the court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.
The Court suggests the proper procedure would be to put the following language in the notice of the motion:
“If you wish to oppose the relief requested in this motion, you must timely file a written reply in compliance with all Court rules. If you fail to do so, the court may treat your failure to respond as a waiver of your right to oppose this motion and may grant the relief requested pursuant to Rule of Court 3.1348(a) which states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”
///
///
///
- Order.
Accordingly, the motion of the Defendant to Compel Further Responses is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall respond to the discovery without objection and within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.
Furthermore, Defendant’s Request for Monetary Sanctions against Plaintiff and his attorney of records are DENIED.
| ____________________________
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).
Link to this page