Motion to Compel Further Responses
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230
DATE: 06/10/2026 TIME: 9:00 and 9:01 A.M.
LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 22CV407623 Shiue-Mei Kou et al Motion: Order vs Chih-Ling Chou et al Please control click or scroll down to Line 1 LINE 2 24CV432761 JRK Investors, Inc. et Motion: Summary Judgment / Adjudication al vs Please control click or scroll down to Line 2 (for 2 & 3) Fairfield Great Oaks LP et al LINE 3 || || || LINE 4 24CV443124 Lozzie Jessie, IV Motion: Compel vs Zanotto’s Willow Glen, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Dr. Sukhdeep Ahuja and Inc. Dr. Jennifer Bruha and Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff.
The Court has received no opposition from Plaintiff. “[T]he failure to file an opposition creates an inference that the motion or demurrer is meritorious.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Good Cause Appearing, Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED. Sanctions are appropriate but the requested amount is excessive as the anticipated three hours for reviewing Plaintiff’s opposition and preparing reply brief is not applicable. Court GRANTS sanctions in the amount of $750.00 for costs incurred in bringing this action. If no one contests this tentative ruling, the amount will be further reduced by one hour.
Defendant to prepare the final order, accompanied by the necessary Forms EFS-020, within 10 days of the date of the hearing.
LINE 5 24CV450632 Subramanyam Motion: Compel Answers Ramaswamy vs Please control click or scroll down to Line 5 PPC Sage LLC et al
Calendar Line 5 Subramanyam Ramaswamy vs PPC Sage LLC et al.
Defendants move to compel further responses to special interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production of documents.
Timeliness
Plaintiff served verified responses on September 22, 2025. Any motion to compel further responses was required to be filed within 45 days thereafter, i.e., no later than November 6, 2025. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300
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?”
No written stipulation extending the statutory deadline has been shown. Compliance with the 45-day requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional, and an untimely motion must be denied. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)
Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff’s responses are “evasive” or “tantamount to no responses” is unavailing. Where verified responses have been served, any alleged deficiencies must be raised through a motion to compel further responses within the statutory period. (Standon Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 898, 903; Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905–906.) Courts strictly enforce the 45-day limitation. (Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 136–138.)
Because the motion is untimely, the Court does not reach the merits.
Service
The Court notes the proof of service reflects electronic service only. Electronic service on an unrepresented party requires consent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (c); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(c)(3)(B).) The record does not establish such consent.
Sanctions
Defendants’ request for $1,140 in sanctions is DENIED because Defendants are not the prevailing party. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h), 2033.290, subd. (d).)
Plaintiff’s request for $1,200 in sanctions is also DENIED. Although the discovery statutes mandate sanctions against an unsuccessful moving party absent substantial justification, Plaintiff has not identified any recoverable out-of-pocket expenses. A self-represented nonattorney litigant may not recover attorney fees or compensation for the value of his or her own time. (Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 292; Argaman v. Ratan (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1180.) Section 2023.030 authorizes recovery of reasonable expenses incurred; no such expenses have been shown.
DISPOSITION
Defendants’ motion is DENIED.
Defendants’ sanctions request is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s sanctions request is DENIED.
The Court will prepare the order.
- oo0oo –