| Teofile Hernandez, Enrique Montiel v. Rodante Cabotje | CASE NO. 114CV262556 | |
| DATE: 29 August 2014 | TIME: 9:00 | LINE NUMBER: 18 |
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 28 August 2014. Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.
On 6 June 2014, the motion of Defendant to Compel Plaintiffs’ Responses to Defendant’s Discovery Requests consisting of
- Form Interrogatories, Set One, to Plaintiff Teofila Hernandez
- Request for Production of Documents, Set One, to Plaintiff Teofila Hernandez
- Form Interrogatories, Set One, to Plaintiff Enrique Montiel
- Special Interrogatories, Set One, to Plaintiff Enrique Montiel
- Request for Production of Documents, Set One, to Plaintiff Enrique Montiel
and Request for Monetary Sanctions was argued and submitted.
Defendants did not file formal opposition to the motion.[1]
Statement of Facts
Plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking damages for an alleged automobile accident that occurred on 21 March 2014.
Discovery Dispute
On 14 May 2014, Defendant’s discovery requests were served on Plaintifs.
Responses were due on 18 June, 2014. However, Defendant has not received responses.
On 25 June 2014, Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff, and requested responses by July 7 2014.
On 4 August 2014, Defendant filed this motion to compel responses and for sanctions.
Analysis
- Defendant’s Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests
Defendant motions to compel discovery responses. The request is code-compliant. In support of the motion to compel responses, Defendant cites Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010(d), 2023.030, 2030.260, 2030.290, 2031.260, and 2031.300(b).
To prevail on its motion, a party needs to show 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. Superior Court. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.)
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. § 2030.290(a); § 2031.300(a).
If a party to whom interrogatories or demands for inspection are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party propounding the interrogatories 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).
Here, Defendant properly cites the Code of Civil Procedure in support of his motion to compel discovery responses.
- Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, to Plaintiff Teofila Hernandez
Defendant has provided proof of service for Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One to Plaintiff Hernandez. The deadline for Plaintiff Hernandez to respond has lapsed and Plaintiff has not timely responded to Defendant’s request.
Accordingly Defendant’s motion to compel responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One to Plaintiff Hernandez is GRANTED. Plaintiff Hernandez shall respond to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, without objections within 20 calendar days.
- Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, to Plaintiff Teofila Hernandez
Defendant has provided proof of service for Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One to Plaintiff Hernandez. The deadline for Plaintiff Hernandez to respond has lapsed and Plaintiff has not timely responded to Defendant’s request.
Accordingly Defendant’s motion to compel responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One to Plaintiff Hernandez is GRANTED. Plaintiff Hernandez shall respond to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, without objections within 20 calendar days.
- Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, to Plaintiff Enrique Montiel
Defendant has provided proof of service for Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One to Plaintiff Montiel. The deadline for Plaintiff Montiel to respond has lapsed and Plaintiff has not timely responded to Defendant’s request. Accordingly Defendant’s motion to compel responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One to Plaintiff Montiel is GRANTED. Plaintiff Montiel shall respond to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, without objections within 20 calendar days.
- Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, to Plaintiff Enrique Montiel
Defendant has provided proof of service for Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One to Plaintiff Montiel. The deadline for Plaintiff Montiel to respond has lapsed and Plaintiff has not timely responded to Defendant’s request. Accordingly Defendant’s motion to compel responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One to Plaintiff Montiel is GRANTED. Plaintiff Montiel shall respond to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, without objections within 20 calendar days.
- Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, to Plaintiff Enrique Montiel
Defendant has provided proof of service for Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One to Plaintiff Montiel. The deadline for Plaintiff Montiel to respond has lapsed and Plaintiff has not timely responded to Defendant’s request.
Accordingly Defendant’s motion to compel responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One to Plaintiff Montiel is GRANTED. Plaintiff Montiel shall respond to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, without objections within 20 calendar days.
- Defendant’s Request for Monetary Sanctions
Defendant makes a request for monetary sanctions. The request is 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.” (See Rule of Court 2.30). The party’s motion must also state the applicable rule that has been violated. (Id.).
In support of the request for sanctions, Defendant cites Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 2023.010(d), 2023.030, 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c), and California Rule of Court 3.1348(a). 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.
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.
Next, 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 and thus is not self-executing. 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.
The California Code of Civil Procedure states that the Court shall impose monetary sanctions in many different situations. See Code Civ. Pro. § 2030.290(c) (Imposing monetary sanctions for a motion to compel answers to interrogatories); Code Civ. Pro. § 2031.300(c) (Imposing monetary sanctions against losing party in motion to compel response to inspection demand). However, where the Court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust” no monetary sanctions shall be imposed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030(a)). Where there are no opposition papers filed, the proper source of authority for monetary sanctions is Rule of Court 3.1348(a) as there has been no failed opposition.
In determining the amount for monetary sanctions the determination of a reasonable attorney’s fee involves multiplying the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney involved in the presentation of the case. (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48-49). Sanctions should be awarded only for expenses actually incurred. (See Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services (1st Dist. 2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1551).
Here, Defendant has made a code complaint request for monetary sanctions. Plaintiff has not filed opposition papers. Therefore, Defendant properly cites California Rule of Court 3.1348(a). Defendant also properly calculates sanctions based on time actually worked plus the filing fee.
Therefore, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $584.00 is GRANTED.
Order
Defendant’s motion to compel responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One to Plaintiff Hernandez is GRANTED. Plaintiff Hernandez shall respond to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, without objections within 20 calendar days.
Defendant’s motion to compel responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One to Plaintiff Hernandez is GRANTED. Plaintiff Hernandez shall respond to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, without objections within 20 calendar days.
Defendant’s motion to compel responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One to Plaintiff Montiel is GRANTED. Plaintiff Montiel shall respond to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories, Set One, without objections within 20 calendar days.
Defendant’s motion to compel responses to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One to Plaintiff Montiel is GRANTED. Plaintiff Montiel shall respond to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, without objections within 20 calendar days.
Defendant’s motion to compel responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One to Plaintiff Montiel is GRANTED. Plaintiff Montiel shall respond to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, without objections within 20 calendar days.
Therefore, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $584.00 is GRANTED. Defendant shall pay Plaintiff said sum within 20 calendar days.
| ____________________________
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