Defendant Gopi Mattel’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena; and Opposition to Non-Parties’ Request for Monetary Sanctions
August 17, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 10 Judge: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM LINE 6 23-CIV-00365 MARGARET FRIED VS. GOPI MATTEL
MARARET FRIED JEFFREY A. FELDMAN GOPI MATTEL PRO SE
Defendant Gopi Mattel’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena; and Opposition to Non- Parties’ Request for Monetary Sanctions
TENTATIVE RULING:
Initially, the Court notes defendant provided the improper address for the hearing because the matter was reassigned to the Honorable David A. Silberman, Department 11, effective May 11, 2026. Department 11 is located at the Central Branch Courthouse, Courtroom G, 800 North Humboldt Street, San Mateo, CA 94401. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110 [the Notice “must specify” the location of the hearing].) The Court notes the most recent filings associated with the instant motion have corrected the judicial officer and location in the caption therefore the Court finds the error harmless.
Defendant Gopi Mattel’s motion to compel compliance of non-parties Aria Khalili and his company, Paria LLC (“Pariax”) with a deposition subpoena for personal appearance and production of documents and things issued by this Court on September 3, 2025 was withdrawn by defendant on August 11, 2026.
However, Non-parties Pariax LLC’s and Aria Khalili opposed the motion, requested sanctions pursuant to Code and continues to pursue them. That request is DENIED. The trial court is required to award monetary sanctions against any person “who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel an answer or production, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (j), italics added.)” This section does not provide a statutory basis to order sanctions because the motion was withdrawn.
That is also true of Code of Civil Procedure Section 2023.010(h). The Court would have authority to award sanctions under Section 2023.030(a) in the abstract, but it does not conclude based on the showing made that Defendant was engaged in the misuse of the discovery process. It appears that Defendant was pursuing discovery that he believed was appropriate, but that he did it in an inept way. And as a consequence, he is now foreclosed from pursuing the evidence in discovery.
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?”
The Court is not condoning Defendant’s conduct. In addition to the inept and discourteous way in which he pursued the discovery, the fact that it resulted in a continuance of the trial and his failure to respond to Pariax’s attempts to resolve the dispute, the Court notes with particular concern Defendant’s acknowledged mis-citation of legal authority for his underlying motion and his statement that he has “adopted a practice of independently verifying every legal authority before filing.” (Declaration of Gopi Mattel iso motion to withdraw filed August 11, 2026, ¶ 5.)
This is a requirement, not a practice to adopt: legal standards require that courts apply the rules of practice and procedure equally to self-represented litigants and represented litigants alike. (See Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985 [a party’s election to act as his own attorney does not entitle him to lenience as to the rules of practice and procedure].)
August 17, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 11 Judge: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ The Court also notes, with appreciation, the diligent meet and confer attempts counsel Miller attempted with Defendant Mattel in effort to avoid court intervention. (Declaration of Donald A, Miller iso opposition to motion to compel filed August 4, 2026, ¶¶ 7-12.).
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept.11@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the California Rules of Court. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be efiled only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.