Motion to Compel Discovery
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: June 5, 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 25CV456698 James Choi vs WESTFIELD, LLC, a Motion: Compel Delaware Limited Liability Company et al Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 1 for tentative ruling. LINE 2 25CV457102 Michael Sinyard vs Brian Ledig Motion: Leave to Amend
Defendant’s unopposed motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall serve and file the First Amended Verified Answer to Complaint within 5 days of the date of the hearing on this motion.
The Court will prepare the final order. LINE 3 25CV463523 RAVI VOU vs COUNTY OF SANTA Hearing: Demurrer CLARA Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 3 for tentative ruling.
Calendar Line 1
Case Name: James Choi vs WESTFIELD, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company et al Case No.: 25CV456698
On January 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint against five named defendants. Since that time, Plaintiff seems to have been challenged in timely, and perhaps substantively, complying with his discovery obligations. As a result, the Court has sanctioned Plaintiff for discovery abuse on April 8, 2026 (Order filed May 7, 2026) and April 17, 2026 (Order filed May 15, 2026). The instant motion is the third motion to compel brought against Plaintiff for failure to provide timely discovery responses and more are on the horizon.
Plaintiff should be reminded that “[i]t is a central precept to the Civil Discovery Act of 1986 (§ 2016 et seq.) ... that civil discovery be essentially self-executing. [Citation.]” [Citation.] A self-executing discovery system is “one that operates without judicial involvement.” (2 Hogan & Weber, Cal. Civil Discovery [(2d ed. 2005) Sanctions,] § 15.4, pp. 15-7 to 15-8.)” (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1291-1292
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?”
On December 29, 2025, Defendant Nordstrom served on Plaintiff Special Interrogatories, Set One. Plaintiff’s responses were due no later than January 30, 2026. Plaintiff did not serve responses by that date. Nordstrom understandably filed this motion asking the Court to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Nordstrom’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, without objection, and to impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his attorney in the amount of $2,073.00.
Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion was due May 22, 2026. Plaintiff has not filed any opposition. “[T]he failure to file an opposition creates an inference that the motion ... is meritorious.” (Sexton v. Super Ct. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410; Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Is. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 489 [“appellants had ample opportunity to present their arguments and excuses to the trial court. Instead, they failed to file opposition to the motion to compel ..., leading the trial court ... to presume they had no meritorious arguments”].)
With admirable diligence and candor, Nordstrom has advised the Court that on May 13, 2026, Plaintiff finally served responses to Nordstrom’s Special Interrogatories, Set One. Those responses included objections, and Norstrom asserts that most of the answers are vague, ambiguous, conclusory, and incomplete. Nordstrom asks the Court to compel Plaintiff to further respond to Nordstrom’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, without objection (pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a)), and with substantive answers “within a specific number of days that this Court deems reasonable after Defendant Nordstrom serves its meet-and-confer letter on Plaintiff.” Nordstrom maintains its request for sanctions.
The trial Court is vested with substantial discretion when there was a failure to respond to discovery before the motion to compel was filed but responses are served thereafter. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409.) Here, Nordstrom’s request is reasonable and serves the best interest of judicial economy. Plaintiff failed to timely serve interrogatory responses. Plaintiff has thus “waived any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(a).) By itself, the fact that Plaintiff has responded with 4
any objections at all clearly shows that the late responses have not mooted the issues raised by the motion. Nordstrom’s other concerns with the late responses might also be well taken, but the Court will give the parties an opportunity to resolve that question informally first.
For these reasons:
1) Plaintiff’s counsel shall meet and confer with Nordstrom’s counsel either in person, by telephone, or by video conference not later than June 12, 2026, to attempt to informally resolve all remaining issues with the current state of Plaintiff’s late responses;
2) Plaintiff shall serve further verified, code-compliant responses without objections to Nordstrom’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, not later than June 26, 2026;
3) If any issues remain after service of Plaintiff’s further responses, the parties shall file a joint statement no later than July 7, 2026, which shall identify the remaining items in dispute and the reasons why further responses should/should not be compelled.
4) The matter is CONTINUED to July 10, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 13 for further proceedings consistent with this order.
In addition, Nordstrom’s request for monetary sanctions with respect to the instant motion is well taken. Plaintiff’s failure to serve timely responses necessitated the filing of this motion; Plaintiff’s late responses with, at minimum, inappropriate objections have not mooted the issues; Plaintiff has been completely silent as far as any opposition or formal filing as to this motion; and there is no evidence of substantial justification or other circumstances to excuse Plaintiff’s delinquency or render the imposition of the sanction unjust. Therefore, Plaintiff and his counsel shall pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,073.00 to Defendant Nordstrom within 30 days of the date of service of the final order. (Code Civ. Proc., § 20230.290.)
The Court will prepare the final order.
- oo0oo -
5