Preview
Case Number: 18-CIV-03110
SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY
400 County Center 1050 Mission Road
Redwood City, CA 94063 South San Francisco, CA 94080
www.sanmateocourt.org
Minute Order
SWEET PRODUCTION, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION vs. 18-CIV-03110
SOLOMON SHA, et al
08/28/2019 9:00 AM
Motion for Leave
Hearing Result: Held
Judicial Officer: Davis, III, Leland Location: Courtroom 4C
Courtroom Clerk: Sarai Goulart Courtroom Reporter: Sydney Straub
Parties Present
Exhibits
Minutes
Journals
- 9:03 a.m.
No appearance by any parties herein or their counsel of record.
Case Events
- Tentative ruling adopted and becomes order:;
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY & MOTION TO ISSUE TERMINATING SANCTIONS.
Defendant's motion to reopen discovery is GRANTED pursuant to CCP 2024.050.
Defendant's motion to issue terminating sanctions is DENIED.
In determining whether to reopen discovery, the court considers: (1) the necessity and the reasons for
the discovery; (2) the diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a
discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion
was not heard earlier; (3) any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion
will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or
result in prejudice to any other party; and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between any date
previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 2024.050.
It appears that very little discovery has been conducted in this case, largely as a result Plaintiff SPI's
failure to respond to Defendant Sha's discovery requests, which were originally served in July 2018.
Plaintiff SPI does not dispute that it has failed to respond to discovery requests. Rather, it contends that
Defendant was not diligent in seeking a hearing on its motion to compel because it did not file the
motion until February 2019 and, after that motion was denied without prejudice, did not seek to have
his second motion to compel heard until after the applicable discovery deadline had passed. Plaintiff
further contends that it will be prejudiced by the reopening of discovery because it will be deprived of
the "benefit of [its] bargain," referring to Plaintiff's stipulation to continue trial for the purpose of
negotiating settlement. [Opposition, p.8] The court does not agree.
1
Case Number: 18-CIV-03110
Defendant's motions to compel responses to discovery requests were denied as procedurally defective,
and its second motion to compel was untimely. Nonetheless, Defendant made reasonable attempts to
enforce the discovery demands after Plaintiff failed to respond. More significantly, however, Plaintiff has
made no showing that it will be materially prejudiced by the reopening of discovery. Plaintiff has not
been deprived of the "benefit of its bargain," as it is free to continue negotiating for a settlement. On the
other hand, the likelihood of prejudice to Defendant is significant if it is prevented from obtaining
evidence to support its defenses and cross-claims. Further, Defendant promptly sought to reopen
discovery within a month after the trial date was continued. Ultimately, the balance of these factors
weighs in favor of reopening discovery.
Defendant contends the court should issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiff SPI pursuant to CCP
2023.030. Generally, however, terminating sanctions are issued for violation of a court order and after
lesser sanctions have been issued. See, e.g., CCP 2030.290(c); see also Weil & Brown, [8:2235] Sanctions
for Failure to Obey Court Order Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 8M-5. Neither of those events
has happened in this case. Indeed, the court has denied Defendant's motions to compel. Finally,
Defendant has not pointed to any authorities indicating that terminating sanctions have been awarded
in similar circumstances. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's request for terminating sanctions is
denied.
The court finds Plaintiff acted with substantial justification in opposing the motion to reopen discovery.
As a result, Defendant's request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for
Defendant shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court's ruling for the Court's signature,
pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties
who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.
Others
Comments:
Future Hearings and Vacated Hearings
September 18, 2019 9:00 AM Motion for Order
Master Calendar, -
December 18, 2019 1:30 PM Mandatory Settlement Conference
Grandsaert, John L.
Courtroom 2D
January 06, 2020 9:00 AM Jury Trial
Master Calendar, -
2
Preview
Case Number: 18-CIV-03110 SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY 400 County Center 1050 Mission Road Redwood City, CA 94063 South San Francisco, CA 94080 www.sanmateocourt.org Minute Order SWEET PRODUCTION, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION vs. 18-CIV-03110 SOLOMON SHA, et al 08/28/2019 9:00 AM Motion for Leave Hearing Result: Held Judicial Officer: Davis, III, Leland Location: Courtroom 4C Courtroom Clerk: Sarai Goulart Courtroom Reporter: Sydney Straub Parties Present Exhibits Minutes Journals - 9:03 a.m. No appearance by any parties herein or their counsel of record. Case Events - Tentative ruling adopted and becomes order:; DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY & MOTION TO ISSUE TERMINATING SANCTIONS. Defendant's motion to reopen discovery is GRANTED pursuant to CCP 2024.050. Defendant's motion to issue terminating sanctions is DENIED. In determining whether to reopen discovery, the court considers: (1) the necessity and the reasons for the discovery; (2) the diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier; (3) any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party; and (4) the length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 2024.050. It appears that very little discovery has been conducted in this case, largely as a result Plaintiff SPI's failure to respond to Defendant Sha's discovery requests, which were originally served in July 2018. Plaintiff SPI does not dispute that it has failed to respond to discovery requests. Rather, it contends that Defendant was not diligent in seeking a hearing on its motion to compel because it did not file the motion until February 2019 and, after that motion was denied without prejudice, did not seek to have his second motion to compel heard until after the applicable discovery deadline had passed. Plaintiff further contends that it will be prejudiced by the reopening of discovery because it will be deprived of the "benefit of [its] bargain," referring to Plaintiff's stipulation to continue trial for the purpose of negotiating settlement. [Opposition, p.8] The court does not agree. 1 Case Number: 18-CIV-03110 Defendant's motions to compel responses to discovery requests were denied as procedurally defective, and its second motion to compel was untimely. Nonetheless, Defendant made reasonable attempts to enforce the discovery demands after Plaintiff failed to respond. More significantly, however, Plaintiff has made no showing that it will be materially prejudiced by the reopening of discovery. Plaintiff has not been deprived of the "benefit of its bargain," as it is free to continue negotiating for a settlement. On the other hand, the likelihood of prejudice to Defendant is significant if it is prevented from obtaining evidence to support its defenses and cross-claims. Further, Defendant promptly sought to reopen discovery within a month after the trial date was continued. Ultimately, the balance of these factors weighs in favor of reopening discovery. Defendant contends the court should issue terminating sanctions against Plaintiff SPI pursuant to CCP 2023.030. Generally, however, terminating sanctions are issued for violation of a court order and after lesser sanctions have been issued. See, e.g., CCP 2030.290(c); see also Weil & Brown, [8:2235] Sanctions for Failure to Obey Court Order Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 8M-5. Neither of those events has happened in this case. Indeed, the court has denied Defendant's motions to compel. Finally, Defendant has not pointed to any authorities indicating that terminating sanctions have been awarded in similar circumstances. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's request for terminating sanctions is denied. The court finds Plaintiff acted with substantial justification in opposing the motion to reopen discovery. As a result, Defendant's request for monetary sanctions is DENIED. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court's ruling for the Court's signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court. Others Comments: Future Hearings and Vacated Hearings September 18, 2019 9:00 AM Motion for Order Master Calendar, - December 18, 2019 1:30 PM Mandatory Settlement Conference Grandsaert, John L. Courtroom 2D January 06, 2020 9:00 AM Jury Trial Master Calendar, - 2