Motion to Deem Facts Admitted and Imposing Sanctions
Stanislaus County - Civil - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/civil-tentati ve-rulings Civil Tentative Rulings June 24, 2026
The following are the tentative ruling for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:
CV-25-002065 - NWP INDUSTRIES LP vs SCHAAF, EARL JOHN VANDER - Plaintiff NWP Industries, L.P.'s Motion to Deem Facts Admitted and Imposing Sanctions in the Amount of $2,701.95 - DENIED. The Court does not have authority to grant the request given that a response was provided. Even assuming the responses are deficient - which they appear to be - deeming facts admitted is outside the scope of the court's power. (See, for instance, Katayama v. Continental Investment Group (2024) 105 Cal.App.5 th 898.) NWP cites to no authority which supports an alternative reading, probably because none exists.
CV-25-004154 - GARRETTSTEINMAN, DANIEL PAUL vs SIERRA CLUB - a) Defendant's Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to June 25, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 21, to be heard concurrently with the discovery motions set on that date.
b) Defendant's Motion Compel Further Responses to Defendants' Special Interrogatories, Set No. One - CONTINUED, on the Court's own motion, to June 25, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 21, to be heard concurrently with the discovery motions set on that date.
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:
CV-25-001000 - PUENTES, JARED vs CROSKREY, PAUL - Defendant and Cross-Complainant Paul Croskrey's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories and for Discovery Sanctions Against Plaintiff and His Counsel in the Amount of $4,632 - DENIED.
Defendant submitted a motion to compel pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 on May 26, 2026. Plaintiff opposed and served supplemental responses concurrently with its opposition papers. Defendant replied.
"Any party may obtain discovery . . . by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.010.) "A party may propound to another party . . .[t]hirty-five specially prepared interrogatories that are relevant to the subject matter of the pending action." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.030.) A motion to compel "shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.300.) "A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue presented by the motion." (Code Civ.
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?”
Proc., Sec. 2016.040.) "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 a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, 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., Sec. 2030.300.)
Here, the motion is procedurally defective. There was no attempt to meet and confer either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference. The only attempt to comply with Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 2030.300 was the delivery of a letter sent as an attachment to an email on May 13, 2026. A letter sent by email is insufficient. The Legislature's specification of the authorized methods for meeting and conferring reflects its belief that more personal forms of communication--beyond written exchanges--are better suited to resolving disputes informally, thereby reducing the burden on both the courts and the parties.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. Plaintiff did not respond to moving party's request to meet and confer. Parties should not receive a windfall for failing to respond to a moving party and/or failing to meet and confer. The Court finds the circumstances here make the imposition of sanctions unjust and declines to issue them.