Motion to Compel
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 13 Honorable Daniel T. Nishigaya R. Belligan, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2240
DATE: May 29, 2026 TIME: 9:00 & 9:01 A.M. TO CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING, YOU MUST CALL (408) 808-6856 BEFORE 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY PRIOR TO THE HEARING. You must also inform all other sides to the issue before 4:00 P.M. the day prior to the hearing that you plan to contest the ruling. The Court will not hear argument, and the tentative ruling will be adopted if these notifications are not made. (Cal. Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1); Civil Local Rule 8.D.)
LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 24CV442463 Monar LLC, a California limited liability Motion: Compel company vs Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners, Inc. et al Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 1 for tentative ruling. LINE 2 24CV444291 Eric Hartman vs City of San Jose- Motion for Reclassification Finance Department et al Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 2 for tentative ruling. LINE 3 24CV451782 Wells Fargo Bank, N.a. vs Enrique Motion for Attorney’s Fees Larahernandez Plaintiff’s unopposed motion is GRANTED. (Sexton v. Super Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410 [“[T]he failure to file an opposition creates an inference that the motion ... is meritorious.”].) The Court awards Plaintiff $800.00 of attorney fees against Defendant Enrique Larahernandez.
Plaintiff shall prepare and submit the final order, accompanied by the necessary Form EFS-020, within 10 days of the date of the hearing.
Calendar Line 1
Case Name: Monar LLC vs Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners, Inc. et al Case No.: 24CV442463
Defendants (KRP) seek an order: (1) Compelling Plaintiff (Monar) to serve verified a supplemental responses to KRP's Form Interrogatories-Construction, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Interrogatories-Construction, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One in the nature of the Statement of Claim agreed to by them in a fashion admissible in a court of law; (2) Compelling Monar to produce supplemental documents fully responsive to KRP’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and to identify any and all documents being withheld on privilege or other grounds; and (3) that Monar and its counsel pay monetary sanctions to KRP for reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred in connection with this discovery proceeding in the total sum of not less than $12,000 (with no sanctions being paid by KRP or their counsel to Monar or its counsel).
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 begins by noting that KRP’s indignant tone and hyperbole is bold in a case in which KRP has been sanctioned by this Court for discovery violations on March 12, 2025, March 14, 2025, March 26, 2025, May 7, 2025, August 27, 2025, and August 29, 2025. Monar’s opposition is slightly less ad hominem. Fortunately, the correspondence between counsel mostly seems to take a different tact and, unusually, the Court actually preferred reading much of that material.
KRP asserts in its memorandum that as of the filing of the motion “absolutely nothing has been provided in the way of supplemental responses or documents” (Memorandum, at p. 7, emphasis original.) Since the filing of the motion, some exchange has taken place or has been promised. For instance, as of May 15, 2026, Monar claimed to be “producing additional responsive documents which were recently obtained from Plaintiff’s third-party contractor.” (Opposition, at p. 2.) KRP argues that Monar has never given “an unequivocal statement ... that the ... 858 pages produced to date comprise all of the responsive documents within Plaintiffs possession, custody, or control.” (Reply, at p. 6, emphasis omitted.)
This seems to be easily addressed by Monar. “Plaintiff’s counsel further represented the Allocation was subject to further change, as additional information in Teamwrkx’s production could affect Plaintiff’s expert’s evaluation.” (Opposition, at p. 4.) Whatever the Teamwrkx material means to the parties’ agreement that Monar would provide a verified Statement of Claim or allocation, that material is now with Monar.
Under these circumstances, although the parties perceive they have engaged in an exhaustive meet and confer effort, the Court is going to require more. Indeed, once before the parties resolved or narrowed discovery issues after motions practice was initiated. In light of the current circumstances the Court orders the following:
1) The parties are ordered to conduct good faith, reasonable and meaningful meet and confers, either in person, by phone or video conference, to try to narrow the issues in this motion;
2) Monar shall have until June 26, 2026 to further supplement its discovery responses, including the provision of a privilege log if applicable, and its Statement of Claim/Allocation;
3) The motion to compel, including each party’s request for monetary sanctions, is CONTINUED to July 31, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 13.
4) The parties shall file an updated joint statement no later than July 17, 2026, which shall identify the remaining items in dispute and the reasons why further responses should/should not be compelled.
The Court will prepare the final order.
- oo0oo -
6