Richard Chamberlain v. Santa Clara Public Defender’s Office et al.

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: 08/19/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.

LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 23CV424431 Eslambolchizadeh v. Sonicwall Inc. MOTION TO COMPEL

Off Calendar per Stipulation and Order 8/12/2026 LINE 2 23CV425156 Katrina Vallejo et. al v. Richard Hansen et al. MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE

Plaintiff’s motion for trial preference pursuant to CCP section 36(b).

Notice is proper. The Court has received no opposition from Defendants. “[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, Plaintiff’s motion is granted. The case shall proceed to trial within 120 days. Counsel to meet and confer and appear on 8/19/26 for trial re-setting scheduling. (Please be advised the Court is DARK the weeks of 12/21/26 and 12/28/26.) Plaintiff to prepare the final order, accompanied by the necessary Forms EFS-020, within 7 days of the date of the hearing. LINE 3 24CV438575 H.J. v. Doe 1 and County of Santa Clara DEMURRER

Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 3 LINE 4 25CV456689 Richard Chamberlain v. Santa Clara Public Defender’s Office et al. MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 4 LINE 5 25CV457483 Richard Chamberlain v. Jason Chamberlain MOTION TO STRIKE

Moot in light of ruling on Motion for Summary Judgement; Off calendar LINE 6 25CV463225 Bejar Moreno et al. v. Bernice Chavez MOTION TO COMPEL

Off calendar per dismissal filed 8/6/2026 LINE 7 LINE 8 25CV471884 Tominaga et al. v. Palo Alto Cuisine, et al. DEMURRER & MOTION TO STRIKE

Please Ctrl Click (or scroll down to) Line 7 - 8

Calendar line 4 Case Name: Richard Chamberlain v. Santa Clara County Public Defender’s Office, et al. Case No.: 25CV4566809

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL Plaintiff Richard Chamberlain moves to compel named Defendant Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office (“DAO”) to serve documents to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request for Productins of Documents (Set One), and seeks $1,500 in monetary sanctions.

Plaintiff Richard Chamberlain moves to compel Defendant Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office (“DAO”) to serve verified responses, without objection, to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents (Set One), and seeks monetary sanctions.

The motion is DENIED without prejudice. A plaintiff may make a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of documents to a party only after the time specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.020. The party to whom the demand is directed must serve a timely response. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.010, 2031.020, 2031.030.) If a party fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a response. (Id., § 2031.300.)

Here, Plaintiff served the document requests on December 15, 2025. The proof of service identifies Deputy County Counsel Mark Bernal as a recipient. Mr. Bernal’s declaration (for the August 12, 2026 Motion to Compel in this action which the court takes judicial notice of) establishes that he represents the Santa Clara County Public Defender’s Office, not the DAO, and that the DAO has neither been served with the summons and complaint nor appeared in this action. Plaintiff has not shown otherwise.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has not established that the document demands were properly propounded on the DAO or that the DAO was subject to a duty to respond under the Civil Discovery Act. The statutory basis for an order compelling responses under section 2031.300 is therefore absent. The Court need not determine on this motion whether the DAO is a proper defendant or separately suable entity. Nothing in this ruling precludes Plaintiff from pursuing discovery through procedures authorized by the Code of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents (Set One) to Defendant Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office is DENIED without prejudice. The request for $1,500 in monetary sanctions is DENIED as not applicable. The Court will prepare the Order.

- oo0oo –