Sayyed, Khan v. GEICO Casualty Company CASE NO. 114CV264199
DATE: 23 May 2014 TIME: 9:00 LINE NUMBER: 19
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 22 May 2014. Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.

On 23 May 2014, the motion of Respondent GEICO Casualty Company to compel Claimant Sameen Sayyed to answer outstanding discovery and for monetary sanctions was argued and submitted.

Defendants did not file formal opposition to the motion.

Statement of Facts

This is an uninsured motorist proceeding.

Discovery Dispute

The petition in this matter was filed to compel discovery responses.

On 7 January 2014, Respondent served upon Claimant form interrogatories, set one and a request for production of documents, set one. Responses were due on or before the 11th of February 2014.

On 5 March 2014, counsel for Respondent to counsel for claimant count that a “meet and confer” letter concerning the late discovery. While such a letter is not required where no responses have been received, the better practice is to attempt to resolve the matter short of court intervention if this is at all possible. No response has been forthcoming.

Order

The motion is GRANTED. Claimant is to serve code compliant responses to the foregoing discovery without objection and within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.

Sanctions

Respondent makes a request for monetary sanctions. The request is not code-compliant.

Code of Civil Procedure, § 2023.040 states: “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.”

In support of the request for sanctions, Plaintiff cites Code of Civil Procedure, § 2023.010. Section 2023.010 defines acts that constitute misuses of the discovery process, and does not itself set forth any provisions regarding the issuance of a monetary sanction.

Defendants also cite Code of Civil Procedure, § 2023.030. 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.

Defendants cite Code of Civil Procedure, § 2030.290(c) without subsections. However, these subsections are inapplicable because plaintiffs never filed opposition to the motion. The proper authority would have been Rule of Court 3.1348(a).

The request for monetary sanction is not code compliant. The request for monetary sanctions is DENIED