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 14 August 2014.  Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.

On 15 August 2014, the motion of Nissan North America, Inc. to compel Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants’ request for a statement of damages was argued and submitted.

Defendants did not file formal opposition to the motion.

All parties are reminded that all papers must comply with Rule of Court 3.1110(f).[1]

Statement of Facts

The complaint in this action was filed on 2 May 2014.  It is identified as a products liability claim which caused injuries to Roger Nguyen.  Christy Le is his wife who claims to have injuries for loss of consortium.

According to the moving papers, Mr. Nguyen was involved in a motor vehicle collision on 3 May 2012 while driving a 2011 Infiniti G35

Discovery Dispute

On 10 June 2014, sent to both Plaintiffs a request for a statement of damages.  Defendant sent a follow-up letter dated 10 July 2014 requesting a response by 15 July 2014.

The moving papers refer to a declaration of Marcelo Lee but no such declaration with the attached exhibits is in this Court’s file.  Counsel for Defendant will be asked to provide such a declaration.

This Court did receive Defendant’s Statement of Non-Opposition which was filed on 12 August 2014.

Analysis

A motion to compel a statement of damages is outside the Discovery Act.  SeeWeil & Brown et al., CAL. PRAC. GUIDE: CIV. PROC. BEFORE TRIAL (The Rutter Group 2013), pp. 8K-1-8K-2, [8:1757]-[8:1764].

“Where a plaintiff who was properly served with a request for statement of damages fails or refuses to serve a responsive statement, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.11, subdivision (b) provides that the defendant may petition the court for an order that the plaintiff serve one.”  Argame v. Werasophon (1997) 57 Cal. App. 4th 616, 618.

Here, there is no dispute that Defendant properly served a request for statement of damages and that Plaintiffs failed to respond.  Under these circumstances, the Court finds that Defendant was authorized to file a motion to compel Plaintiffs to provide a response to Defendant’s request for a statement of damages.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, request for production of documents, and request for statement of damages are GRANTED.

Plaintiffs are to serve a code compliant response to Defendant’s request for a statement of damages within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.

[1] “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.”