Robert Hayter, II vs Bella Nguyen

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 1 Honorable Eunice Lee, Presiding TBD, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: September 8, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call the Court at (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to also let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling, in accordance with California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) and Local Rule 8D.

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS 9:00 A.M. LINE 1 21CV391687 Oswald Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Cost Campesato vs Scroll down to Line 1 for Tentative Ruling. JiaHua Huang et al LINE 2 24CV430173 Lee (aka Lit) Leong Motion for Sanctions vs Ashley A. Lopez OFF CALENDAR. On March 26, 2026 the parties notified the court of a settlement agreement and moving party withdrew motions. LINES 24CV431877 Robert Hayter, II Motion to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories (Line # 3) and 3-4 vs Bella Nguyen Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Line #4); Sanctions Scroll down to Lines 3-4 for Tentative Ruling.

LINE 5 24CV448600 Ian Anderson vs Petition to Compel Arbitration Wells Fargo Bank Scroll down to Line 5 for Tentative Ruling. LINE 6 24CV449214 Quynh Tran vs Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication City of San Jose Scroll down to Line 6 for Tentative Ruling. LINE 7 24CV452024 Danielle Stanton Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production; vs Mehus Sanctions Construction, Inc. Scroll down to Line 7 for Tentative Ruling. LINE 8 25CV467501 Juvenal Plancarte Motion to Compel Deposition Under Code of Civil Procedure 871.26; vs General Motors Sanctions Scroll down to Line 8 for Tentative Ruling.

LINE 9 25CV482065 Theresa Perry vs Motion to Strike Fraudulent Attorney’s Lien and Compel Settlement Emergency Housing Disbursement Consortium et al Scroll down to Line 9 for Tentative Ruling. LINE 10 26CV497702 Baoxin Ling vs Petition For Writ of Mandate Miro Holdings, This petition is CONTINUED to September 10, 9:00 a.m. in Department 1. LLC dba Topi Cake - oo0oo –

Calendar Lines #3- 4 Case Name Robert Hayter, II vs Bella Nguyen et al. Case No. 24CV431877 Motion to Compel Response to Form Interrogatories (Line # 3) and Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Line #4); Sanctions

I. BACKGROUND

A. BRIEF FACTUAL SUMMARY This case stems from a slip-and-fall incident, wherein Plaintiff Robert Hayter, II filed a Complaint for a single cause of action for negligence on February 26, 2024.

B. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Before the Court is defendant Bella Nguyen’s (“Nguyen”) motion to compel Plaintiff Robert Hayter, II’s (“Hayter”) responses to request for form interrogoatires (“FROG”), set one (Line # 3) and request for production of documents (“RFPD”), set one (Line # 4), and sanctions.

On December 3, 2024, Defendant asserts to have served initial discovery including FROGs (Exhibit A, Declaration of Panto (“Panto Decl.”) and RFPD (Exhibit A, Panto Decl. ⁋ 3), set one on Plaintiff’s then attorney Dayna Ellsworth via electronic mail service on that same day. Defense counsel met-and-conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel on December 13, 18, and 19, 2024 regarding a thirty day extension on discovery and then Plaintiff’s counsel noted an intention to withdraw as the attorney of record. On June 9, 2025, the plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw that was granted by the Honorable Judge Deen on June 20, 2025. (Exhibit B, Panto Decl. ⁋ 3-4).

On August 8, 2025, Defense counsel sent a meet-and-confer letter to Plaintiff Hayter stating that no responses to discovery were received and provided a two week extension. (Exhibit C, Panto Decl. 5). The defendant did not receive responses.

Defendant filed the motion to compel responses to FROGs and RFPD, set one and motion for sanctions on November 21, 2025. The motion was accompanied by a proof of service indicating mail service to Plaintiff Hayter. Both motions were set for hearing on July 30, 2026. On February 13, 2026, Defendants Amended Notice of Motion to Compel. However, per ex parte papers filed by the plaintiff seeking a continuance, the Honorable Mark Flannagan continued both motions to September 8, 2026 at 9:00 a.m.

On July 29, 2026, Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition to the motions to compel.

The motion remains unopposed. Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) opposition papers were due on July 8, 2026 based on the first motion setting and due on August 25, 2026 based on the continuance. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (California Rule of Court Rule 8.54(c)). Failure to oppose a motion leads to the presumption that the defendant has no meritorious arguments. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 489).

The Court has carefully reviewed the following: Defendant Nguyen’s notice of motion to compel FROGS, set one and memorandum of points and authorities in support of motion to compel FROGs; Declaration of Arcolina Panto and attached Exhibits A-C (totaling 28 pages); Defendant Nguyen’s notice of motion to compel RFPD, set one and memorandum of points and authorities in support of motion to compel RFPD; Declaration of Arcolina Panto and attached Exhibits A-C (totaling 22 pages); Amended notice for motion to compel FROGs (totaling 4 pages);

Amended notice for motion to compel RFP (totaling 4 pages); notice of non-opposition (totaling 3 pages); proof of service; and the pleadings.

II. LEGAL STANDARD Purusant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.260(a), a party must respond to interrogatories within 30 days after service. f a party to whom interrogatories are directed does not provide a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (Id., § 2030.290, subd. (b)). There is no time limit for a motion to compel initial responses, and no meet and confer efforts are required. (See Id., § 2030.290; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411). Nor must a separate statement be filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(b)(1)). In addition, a party who fails to provide a timely response generally waives all objections. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a)).

California courts have taken a liberal approach to permissible discovery, which has led the courts to resolve any doubt in favor of permitting discovery. (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 173 (“In accordance with the liberal policies underlying the discovery procedures, California courts have been broad-minded in determining whether discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence). (Id. at 172; see also, Pettie v. Superior Court (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 680, 687).

As a practical matter, it is difficult to define at the discovery stage what evidence will be relevant at trial. Therefore, the party seeking discovery is entitled to substantial leeway. (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co., supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 172). The courts have taken the view if an error is made in ruling on a discovery motion, it is better that it be made in favor of granting discovery of the nondiscoverable rather than denying discovery of information vital to preparation or presentation of the party's case or to efficacious settlement of the dispute.” (Norton v.

Superior Court (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1750, 1761).

“As a general matter, the statutory scheme imposes no obligation on a party propounding interrogatories to establish good cause or prove up the merits of any underlying claims.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 550). Indeed, a litigant “is entitled to demand answers to its interrogatories, as a matter of right, and without a prior showing, unless the party on whom those interrogatories are served objects and shows cause why the questions are not within the purview of the code section.” (Id. at p. 541, citing West Pico Furniture Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 422).

Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010(d) allows a party to “demand that any other party allow the party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to enter on any land or other property that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made, and to inspect and to measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the land or other property, or any designated object or operation on it.” Such a demand may be “without leave of court at any time that is 10 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, the party to whom the demand is directed, whichever occurs first.” (Code Civ.

Proc., § 2031.020(b)). “The party making a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall serve a copy of the demand on the party to whom it is directed and on all other parties who have appeared in the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.040). If no response is served, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(b)).

III. ANALYSIS Here, the defendants served the plaintiff with FROG and RFPD on December 3, 2024, Defendant asserts to have served initial discovery including FROGs and RFPD (Exhibit A, Panto Decl. ⁋ 3). The initial discovery was served on Plaintiff’s then attorney of record, Dayna Ellsworth via electronic mail service on that same day. (Motion, p. 2). Attorneys for the parties met-and-conferred after the discovery was served and Plaintiff’s counsel sough a thirty day extension and notified the defense that counsel would seek a motion to withdraw. (Id.). On June 9, 2025, the plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw that was granted by the Honorable Judge Deen on June 20, 2025. (Exhibit B, Panto Decl. ⁋ 3-4).

After the withdrawal of plaintiff’s counsel, defense counsel sent a meet-and-confer letter regarding the outstanding FROGS and RFPD, set one to Plaintiff Hayter directly on August 8, 2025, and unilaterally offered a two week extension. (Exhibit C, Panto Decl. ⁋ 5). The defendant did not receive responses and filed these motions to compel responses to FROGs and RFPD, set one and motion for sanctions on November 21, 2025 that was initially set for hearing on July 30, 2026. Essentially over nineteen months have passed since initial discovery was served.

As of July 29, 2026, the motion was unopposed. The motion is unopposed. Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) opposition papers were due on July 22, 2026. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (California Rule of Court Rule 8.54(c)). Failure to oppose a motion leads to the presumption that the defendant has no meritorious arguments. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 489).

However, per ex parte application on June 30, 2026, Plaintiff sought a continuance, which the Honorable Mark Flannagan reviewed and granted. Judge Flannagan continued both motions to September 8, 2026 at 9:00 a.m.

IV. SANCTIONS Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290(c), when a party moves to compel initial responses to interrogatories, “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes [the motion], 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., § 2030.290, subd. (c)(emphasis added)).

The Defendants seek a total of $410.001 in each of the motions to compel based on one hour of preparing and filing of the motion to compel FROG and another for the motion to compel RFPD, and anticipated 1 hour for each of the motions in review of opposition and to file reply briefs. The hourly rate requested is $175.00. (Panto Decl. ⁋ 7). The Defendant seeks $60 for each of the two motions for filing fees. (Id.).

The Court notes that no opposition papers were filed, thus no time required for review of an opposition or prepare a reply brief. The Court will award the requested one hour for preparation and filing of each motion at the hourly rate of $175.00 as well as the $60.00 in costs for filing each of the two motions. Thus, the sanctions is awarded in the total amount of $470.00 (one hour of time for the motion to compel FROGS and one hour of time for the motion to compel RFPD at the hourly rate of $175.00 and $60.00 in cost for the motion to compel FROGS and $60.00 in cost for the motion to compel RFPD).

V. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the motion to compel discovery for FROGS and RFPD, set one. Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide verified code-compliant responses within twenty (20) days of this Order.

The Court GRANTS the motion for sanctions in the amount of $470.00. Plaintiff is to pay the defendant this amount within twenty (20) days of this Order. The Court will prepare the formal Order.

//

1 In Defendant’s motion to compel FROGs, set one. Defense counsel seeks $585.00 in sanctions on p. 2 of the motion, but seeks $410.00 in sanctions on p. 6 and 8. Based on the hourly rate and hours provided, the Court will consider the $410.00 the correct amount sought by the defendant. 9