Kaboli v. Razavi		CASE NO. 112CV227522
DATE: 25 September 2014	TIME: 9:00	LINE NUMBER: 5

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 Wednesday 24 September 2014.  Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.

On 25 September 2014, the motion of Plaintiffs Soroush Kaboli and Niloofar Farhad to compel verified answers to judgment debtor interrogatories, requests for production, and for production of documents, and for monetary sanctions was argued and submitted.[1]

One of the Defendants, Cameron Razavi, did file formal opposition to the motion.[2]

The Opposition to the Motions were untimely [(Code of Civil Procedure, § 1005(b)] and will not be considered. (Rule of Court 3.1300(d).[3])

All parties are reminded that all papers must comply with Rule of Court 3.1110(f).[4]

I.       Statement of Facts.

This matter arises out of a contractual dispute between Plaintiffs, Soroush Kaboli and Niloofar Farhad, and Defendants, Cameron Razavi and Christine Renee Suh. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to make required payments on a promissory note that Defendants entered into with the Plaintiffs.

II.      Discovery Dispute.

On 1 October 2012, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiffs, Soroush Kaboli and Niloofar Farhad, and against Defendants, Cameron Razavi and Christine Renee Suh, in the amount of $110,309.

On 17 April 2014, Plaintiffs propounded multiple discovery requests, including interrogatories and production of documents, on Defendants in their individual capacities.  Defendant Suh never provided a response to Plaintiffs.

On 31 May 2014, Defendant Razavi provided an incomplete response to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories via facsimile, as well as two documents relating to the registration of Defendants’ cars.

On 21 August 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel responses to discovery requests.

III.     Analysis.

1. Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and Demands for the Production of Documents

To prevail on its motion, a party needs to 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.  (Leach v. Super. Ct. (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 demands 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 moving party 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.)

Judgment debtor interrogatories and requests for production are supplementary proceedings that are proper when used to obtain information to enforce a money judgment. Code Civ. Proc. § 708.020. An answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as “complete and straightforward” as reasonably possible. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220.

Plaintiff provided proof of service for the set of interrogatories and demand for production of documents served to Defendants. Defendant Suh did not respond. Defendant Razavi did respond, but his response is untimely and will not be considered. Even if Defendant Razavi’s response is reviewed, the response is incomplete and unreasonable in light of the contents of the interrogatory and Defendant Razavi’s current status as a Tiburon resident who drives around a Porsche.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories is GRANTED.  Defendants Christine Renee Suh and Cameron Razavi are ordered to serve verified answers in their individual capacities without objection within 20 days after the date of the filing of this order.

         B.           Sanctions.

Plaintiff makes a request for monetary sanctions.

California 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.”  See Rule of Court 2.30.

The request is not code-compliant.

In support of the request for sanctions for the motions to compel responses to interrogatories and document requests, Plaintiffs cite Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.030, 2030.290(c), and 2031.210, all of which are appropriate in response to a party who unsuccessfully opposes the aforementioned motions, as is the case here.

However, the notice of the motion does not identify the person or party or attorney against whom the monetary sanctions are sought.

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

 

IV.     Order.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories is GRANTED.  Defendants Christine Renee Suh and Cameron Razavi are ordered to serve verified answers in their individual capacities without objection within 20 days after the date of the filing of this order.

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions isDENIED.

 

 

________________­­­____________ DATED:

_________________________­­­________________________ HON. SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN Judge of the Superior Court County of Santa Clara

 

[1] Rule of Court 3.1345(d) states: “A motion concerning interrogatories, inspection demands, or admission requests must identify the interrogatories, demands, or requests by set and number.”

[2] “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).

[3] “No paper may be rejected for filing on the ground that it was untimely submitted for filing. If the court, in its discretion, refuses to consider a late filed paper, the minutes or order must so indicate.”

[4] “Each exhibit must be separated by a hard 8½ 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.”