Motion to Compel
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: 05/29/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.
LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 21CV392455 Advoque Safeguard LLC, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION et al. v. Benham Pourdeyhimi, et al. Control click or scroll down to Line 1 LINE 2 23CV416938 Patel et al. (Cross MOTION TO COMPEL Complainants) v. Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Please control click or scroll down to Line 2 Appel, Inc. (Cross- Defendant) LINE 3 23CV418929 Sophie Yeh MOTION TO STRIKE v. The Harker School, et al. Please control click or scroll down to Line 3 LINE 4 24CV430700 Metropolis Systems MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE & SANCTIONS LLC v.
Cryptic Labs LLC Requirement to comply with a court order is self-evident. Motion to compel compliance with Court’s November 14, 2025 order is GRANTED. Sanctions are warranted but the requested amount of $24,500 is not supported. DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff granted leave to file supplemental declaration outlining the calculation of attorneys’ fees and costs sought, together with a proposed order. Plaintiff to prepare final proposed order accompanied by necessary Form EFS-020 within 7 days of the hearing.
LINE 5 24CV451231 Hernandez Padilla MOTION TO COMPEL v. La Michoacana Plus et al. Off calendar at request of moving party Case remains as previously scheduled for trial 8/3/2026
LINE 6 25CV481671 Ximen Service by Electronic mail v. Linktel Technologies, Inc. Please control click or scroll down to Line 6
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: 05/29/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.
LINE 7 23CV416938 Patel et al. (Cross MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL Complainants) v. Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Due to a combination of outstanding discovery (Line 2) and clerical Appel, Inc. (Cross- calendaring error regarding pending Motion for Summary Judgment, the Defendant) motion to continue trial is GRANTED. Motion for Summary Judgment will remain as previously set on August 12, 2026. Jury trial will be continued to 4/12/2027. All discovery and motion cut-off dates, settlement conference dates, and trial assignment dates shall correspond to the April 12, 2027 trial date.
Cross-Defendant to prepare final proposed order accompanied by necessary Form EFS-020 within 7 days of the hearing. 9:01 Line 1 21CV376210 Ku et al v ORDER OF EXAMINATION Herchen et al Continued from 3/18/26 Line 2 25CV477044 Rocha Zamora v COMPROMISE OF MINOR’S CLAIM - for Jayson Avalos Rocha Topgolf Callaway et al. If no notice of matter being contested by 4:00 p.m on 5/28/2026, the Court will sign the e-filed proposed order. Line 3 || || COMPROMISE OF MINOR’S CLAIM - for Baltazar Navarrete Cardenas
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?”
If no notice of matter being contested by 4:00 p.m on 5/28/2026, the Court will sign the e-filed proposed order.
Calendar Line 2 Case Name: Patel et al. (Cross Complainants) v. Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel, Inc. (Cross Defendants) Case No.: 23CV416938
Cross-Defendant’s Motion to Compel discovery responses, including written responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Special Interrogatories, and Form Interrogatories; for an order deeming Requests for Admission admitted; for an order deeming objections waived; and for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in bringing the motion.
Cross-Complainants represents that responses have now been served and that additional supplemental responses and document production are forthcoming. Cross-Defendant contends the supplemental responses remain incomplete, evasive, and deficient.
The Court acknowledges Cross-Defendant’s frustration with Cross-Complainants’ delayed and piecemeal discovery responses. The record reflects that the discovery at issue was propounded approximately five to seven months ago and that responses were not served until after motion practice commenced. The Court does not condone dilatory discovery conduct.
The Court further notes that trial has now been continued to April 2027 (see Line 7), substantially reducing any immediate prejudice arising from the delayed discovery responses and allowing the parties sufficient time to complete discovery without further unnecessary motion practice.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
To the extent Cross-Complainant has now served responses to the discovery at issue, the motion is denied as moot. The Court declines at this time to deem the Requests for Admission admitted or to issue a blanket order deeming all objections waived.
However, the Court finds further relief appropriate given the delayed and piecemeal nature of the discovery responses. The parties are ordered to meet and confer in good faith regarding the specific remaining deficiencies in the discovery responses and document production. Within 7 calendar days of the hearing, Cross-Complainant shall serve a schedule identifying the categories of responsive documents remaining to be produced and the anticipated dates for production. Any supplemental responses and responsive documents shall be served no later than 30 calendar days from the hearing date absent further written agreement of the parties.
The Court further finds that Cross-Defendant was substantially justified in bringing the motion at the time it was filed due to Cross-Complainants’ delayed responses and piecemeal compliance. Although subsequent responses have narrowed the issues presented, they do not negate the necessity of the motion when filed.
Accordingly, the Court awards reduced monetary sanctions in favor of Cross-Defendant and against Cross-Complainant in an amount representing reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in bringing the motion. If no party contests the tentative ruling, the final sanctions amount shall be reduced.
Cross-Defendant shall file and serve a supplemental declaration outlining the calculation of attorneys’ fees and costs sought, together with a proposed order. Cross-Defendant shall prepare the final proposed order, accompanied by the necessary Form EFS-020, within 7 days of the hearing.