Defendant Wade Litigation, APC’s motion to compel (1) initial responses to form interrogatories; and (2) further responses to requests for production, set one; Request for Sanctions
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 11, 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**
9:00 A.M. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING Line 1 25CV479669 Daniel Scholl v. Click LINE 1 or scroll down for ruling. Amiel Wade et al.
Line 2 21CV375921 Yen Lucero v. Ha Plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion for Contempt and Sanctions” against Dao et al. defendant Ha Dao. Notice is not proper. There is no proof of service. Defendant also filed a notice of bankruptcy stay on March 27, 2026, which stays all proceedings in this case until those proceedings are complete. Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The court will prepare the order.
Line 3 24CV444866 Itria Ventures Plaintiff Itria Ventures LLC’s motion for attorney fees and costs against LLC v. Anthony defendant Anthony Murga, Jr. Notice is proper and the motion is Murga, Jr. unopposed. The parties signed a settlement agreement in 2024, under which defendant and other entities agreed to pay plaintiff $310,000. (Exh. A to Takenouchi dec. ISO fee motion, ¶ 1(a).) That agreement has an attorney fee clause. (Id., ¶ 9.) Plaintiff sued defendant to enforce the agreement. The court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in August 2025.
Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney fees under the settlement agreement. (Civ. Code, § 1717.) Plaintiff requests $11,902.50 in attorney and paralegal fees, consisting of 42.4 hours of attorney time and 0.8 hours of paralegal time. The court finds that time reasonably spent, based on its review of the chart summarizing attorney work attached as exhibit 1 to the Takenouchi declaration. The court further finds the attorneys’ rates, which range from $275 to $300 per hour, to be well within the range of attorney fee rates for attorneys with similar experience.
Plaintiff separately filed a memorandum of costs, seeking $1,624.08. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded $11,902.50 in attorney fees and $1,624.08 in costs. 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 Line 1 Case Name: Daniel Scholl v. Amiel Wade et al. Case No.: 25CV479669
Defendant Wade Litigation, APC’s motion to compel (1) initial responses to form interrogatories; and (2) further responses to requests for production, set one. Notice is proper and no timely opposition was filed. Failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the 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.)
Plaintiff filed an opposition on June 10, 2026, one day before the hearing. The court has not considered the untimely filing. The parties are reminded that the court will not consider filings that do not comply with applicable Code of Civil Procedure filing deadlines. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1005 [governing most motions]; 437c [governing motions for summary judgment or adjudication].)
Meet and Confer Requirements
Defendant’s meet and confer efforts––consisting of a single meet and confer letter sent by U.S. Mail––do not comply with the current version of Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040, subdivision (a), which requires “facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion.” (Italics added.) The parties are admonished to undertake meaningful, good faith meet and confer efforts before filing any further discovery motions.
Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories
Plaintiff did not timely respond to the form interrogatories propounded by defendant. An attachment to plaintiff’s untimely opposition to the motion to compel indicates plaintiff responded to the form interrogatories on June 8, 2026, after the deadline to oppose the motion to compel. The court has not considered the adequacy of those untimely responses and expresses no opinion on whether they are code-compliant. The motion to compel initial responses to form interrogatories is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.) Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses to the form interrogatories, without objections, no later than July 10, 2026.
Further Responses to Requests for Production, Set One
Set one of defendant’s request for the production of documents includes 33 requests. Plaintiff responded to the requests, indicating that he would produce certain documents in response to some of the requests. The court agrees with defendant’s argument that those responses are deficient because they (1) are unverified (Code Civ. Proc., §2031.250; Pollock v. Superior Court (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1348, 1358); and (2) do not include a statement of compliance (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.220). An attachment to plaintiff’s untimely opposition to the motion to compel indicates plaintiff supplemented his responses on June 8, 2026, after the deadline to oppose the motion to compel. The court has not considered the adequacy of those untimely supplemental responses and expresses no opinion on whether they are codecompliant. The motion to compel further responses to requests for production is GRANTED.
Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses that include a statement of compliance no later than July 10, 2026.
Request for Sanctions
Defendant requests discovery sanctions in the amount of $110. The court finds sanctions are appropriate. Plaintiff provides no substantial justification for his failure to timely provide code-compliant discovery responses. As to the amount of sanctions requested, defendant did not submit evidence supporting the $110 request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040 [request for sanctions “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.”].) The court will grant discovery sanctions of $60, which is the motion filing fee. The request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff must pay defendant $60 no later than July 10, 2026.
The court will prepare the order. - oo0oo -
5