Motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories; Motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents; Motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2210
DATE: June 9, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)
**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**
Line 4 25CV465227 Austin Cortez v. Click LINE 4 or scroll down for ruling. David Yee Line 5 25CV465227 Austin Cortez v. Click LINE 4 or scroll down for ruling. David Yee Line 6 25CV465227 Austin Cortez v. Click LINE 4 or scroll down for ruling. David Yee
Line 7 23CV427370 Boris Iofis v. Defendants’ motion to tax costs. Notice is proper and the motion is David Lawver et unopposed. Failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the al. granting of the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c).) Failure to oppose a motion leads to the presumption that the non-moving party has no meritorious arguments. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 489.)
Judgment was entered in February 2025, based on a settlement agreement signed by the parties. The settlement agreement called for defendant David Lawver to pay plaintiff $200,000 “in full and final satisfaction of all released claims.” (Settlement agreement attached to 2/5/25 judgment, ¶ 1.) It further states, “The Parties to this Agreement agree to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees in connection with this agreement and the Action.” (Id., ¶ 16.) The judgment required defendants jointly and severally to “pay to Plaintiff BORIS IOFIS the settlement sum of $200,000 forthwith and attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,800 (six hours at $300/hour).” (Judgment, filed 2/5/25, ¶ 2.)
Plaintiff filed an acknowledgement of “partial” satisfaction of judgment in November 2025, acknowledging he received $215,179.62 from defendants. Plaintiff thereafter filed a memorandum of costs, seeking $17,498.00 in post-judgment attorney fees. Plaintiff provides no evidence supporting the claimed fees, nor does he describe how that claim is consistent with the settlement agreement he signed. The November 2025 acknowledgement demonstrates that defendants have complied with the judgment in this case. Defendants’ motion to tax costs is GRANTED. The court will prepare the order.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Calendar Lines 4 through 6 Case Name: Austin Cortez v. David Lee Case No.: 25CV465227
At issue are three motions to compel discovery by plaintiff Austin Cortez against defendant David Lee: a motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set one; a motion to compel further responses to a request for the production of documents, set one; and a motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one. Notice is proper and the motions are opposed by defendant. The case is a negligence action related to an automobile accident.
It appears these motions could have been largely avoided had plaintiff undertaken greater efforts to meet and confer before filing the motions. The extent of plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts appears to have been a single meet and confer letter sent to defense counsel. Defense counsel indicates he did not become aware of that letter until after the motions to compel were filed. Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts were deficient. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.) For this reason, plaintiff’s requests for sanctions related to the motions are DENIED.
Special Interrogatories, Set One
The motion to compel related to special interrogatory Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 26, and 27. Defendant supplemented his responses after the motion to compel was filed, and the motion is now largely moot. Plaintiff’s reply focuses on a single special interrogatory that he argues remains deficient: No.
17.
That interrogatory asks defendant to “State where defendant purchased the subject grill that fell from the vehicle defendant was driving at the time of the incident.” (Some capitalization omitted.) Defendant’s amended response is, “Defendant does not call where his purchase the subject grill.” Plaintiff argues that response is unintelligible. The court agrees that, without clarification, the response is not clear. It is possible defendant meant to state: “Defendant does not recall where he purchased the subject grill.” The response also does not indicate whether defendant undertook the “reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations” required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.220.
The motion is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant is ordered to clarify its response to special interrogatory No. 17 no later than July 9, 2026, consistent with the foregoing. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.
Request for Production, Set One
The motion to compel related to a single request for production––No. 18––which sought documents about ownership of the grill that fell from defendant’s vehicle. Plaintiff’s reply acknowledges that defendant served code compliant amended responses after plaintiff filed the motion. The motion is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.
Form Interrogatories, Set One
The motion to compel related to form interrogatory Nos. 10.2, 12.6, 15.1, and 16.10. Defendant amended his responses after the motion was filed, which appears to have address the deficiency in the original response to interrogatory No. 16.10. Plaintiff’s reply argues the amended responses to the remaining three form interrogatories are deficient.
Interrogatory No. 10.2 asks about any disabilities defendant had immediately before the incident. Defendant’s amended response states, “Defendant is [sic] not have any physical, mental, or emotional disabilities immediately after the incident.” (Some capitalization omitted.) That is not responsive. Defendant must provide a further response that answers the question posed.
Interrogatory No. 12.6 asks about whether any reports were made by any person after the incident. Defendant’s amended response states, in relevant part, “Defendant is not aware of any non-privilege [sic] reports made by any person concerning the incident.” (Some capitalization omitted.) That response is deficient. Defendant must provide a “Yes” or “No” response. To the extent reports exist that are privileged, defendant must state as much (including the nature of the privilege asserted).
Interrogatory No. 15.1 asks defendant to identify all facts upon which he bases a denial or special or affirmative defense. Defendant’s amended response states, in relevant part: “Defendant is not asserting any affirmative defenses at this time. Defendant reserves the right to amend this response.” That conditional response is both deficient and inconsistent with defendant’s answer to the complaint, which asserts nine affirmative defenses. Defendant must provide an amended response. To the extent defendant is now waiving all affirmative defenses, he must state as much unequivocally.
The motion is GRANTED IN PART. Defendant must provide further responses to form interrogatory Nos. 10.2, 12.6, and 15.1 no later than July 9, 2026, consistent with the foregoing. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.
The court will prepare the order.
- oo0oo -
11