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 15 January 2015.  Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.

On 16 January 2015, the motion of Defendant Sahajananda Talla to Compel Supplemental Discovery Responses and to Product Documents and for award of monetary sanctions was argued and submitted.

Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Sergio Deac filed formal opposition to the motion.

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

1. Statement of Facts

In this case Plaintiff is contending that Defendants have failed to pay him money that he is entitled to receive as a result of being Defendant’s general contractor.  Defendants allege that any contract was illegal, Plaintiff committed fraud, that Plaintiff breached any agreement that did exist, and that Plaintiff has been paid more than in full.

1. Discovery Dispute

Defendant is advised that, when filing a discovery motion, including in their memorandums facts as to the dates and history of the discovery in question is useful to the Court.  It is noted that these facts are included in the Declaration of Amiel L. Wade.  However—in deciding a discovery motion—while facts regarding Defendant’s theory that Plaintiff has breached or committed fraud are useful for relevancy determination; discovery related facts would be extremely useful to the Court in making a discovery determination.  See rule of Court 3.1113(b).[2]

On 19 August 2014, Defendant served on Plaintiff’s counsel: 1) a demand for production of documents; 2) a request for admissions; 3) form interrogatories; and 4) special interrogatories. (Ex. B-E; Wade Decl. ¶ 3).

On 24 October 2014, Plaintiff’s counsel mailed their responses to Defendant’s discovery requests. (Ex. F-I; Wade Decl. ¶ 4).  Defendant states that these responses are not code-compliant.

On 3 November 2014, Defendant sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiff’s counsel. (Ex. J; Wade Decl. ¶ 5). In this letter he informed Plaintiff of the issues he saw with Plaintiff’s discovery responses. (Id.)  This letter also requested supplementary discovery responses by 13 November 2014. (Id.)  Plaintiff’s counsel provided some supplementary responses by this date but Defendant states that most of the responses were still inadequate. (Wade Decl. ¶ 6).

On 25 November 2014, Defendant sent another meet and confer letter discussing the remaining issues they believed existed in Plaintiff’s discovery responses. (Ex. O; Wade Decl. ¶ 7).  Defendant received no response to this letter or to a subsequent email requesting response to this letter. (Wade Decl. ¶ 8).

On 22 December 2014, Defendant filed the present motion.

NO TENTATIVE RULING.  The parties are to appear and argue the matter on the merits.

[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.”

[2] “The memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.”  (Emphasis added.)