Motion of Defendant Kim Huynh to Compel Plaintiff Tammy Silva to Provide Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request to Production of Documents, Set Three, and for Monetary Sanctions
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
To access a tentative ruling, move your cursor over the line number, hold down the “Control” key and click. If you see last week’s tentative rulings, you have checked prior to the posting of the current week’s tentative rulings. You will need to either “REFRESH” or “QUIT” your browser and reopen it. Another suggestion is to “clean the cache” of your browser. Finally, you may have to switch browsers. If you fail to do any of these, your browser may pull up old information from old cookies even after the tentative rulings have been posted.
This Court's tentative ruling is just that—tentative. Trial courts are not bound by their tentative rulings, which are superseded by the final order. (See Faulkinbury v. Boyd & Associates, Inc. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1374-1375.) The tentative ruling allows a party to focus his or her arguments at a subsequent hearing and to attempt to convince the Court the tentative should or should not become the Court's final order. (Cowan v. Krayzman (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 907, 917.) If you wish to challenge a tentative ruling, please refer to a specific portion of the tentative ruling to which you disagree.
LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE TENTATIVE RULING
LINE 1 24CV440808 Edgar Daniel Alvarez; Karla Bautista v. Junior Motion of Defendant Target Corporation to Compel Gomez; Timothy McGee; Armando Ramirez; Plaintiffs to Provide Further Responses to Special Sergio Ramirez; Sedgwick Claims Management Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request to Production of Services, Inc.; Target Corporation Documents, Sets Three, and for Monetary Sanctions. OFF CALENDAR.
LINE 2 24CV444353 Stacy Kimball; Tammy Silva v. Kim Huynh Motion of Defendant Kim Huynh to Compel Plaintiff Tammy Silva to Provide Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request to Production of Documents, Set Three, and for Monetary Sanctions. The motion appears to be unopposed. The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff Tammy Silva is to provide answers to the foregoing discovery requests within 10 days of the filing and service of this order. Objections are deemed WAIVED. Defendant makes a request for monetary sanctions. The request is not code-compliant and is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a formal motion requesting sanctions. SEE ATTACHED TENTATIVE RULING. By appearing on a contested tentative ruling, you will be presumed to have read the Bannerhead at the top of this Tentative Ruling Page and the paragraph on “Civility.”
Calendar Line 2 Superior Court, State Of California County Of Santa Clara Department 1
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?”
161 North First Street, San Jose, Ca 95113 408.882.2330 Department21@scscourt.org http://www.scscourt.org
(For Clerk's Use Only)
Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian is covering for Judge Eunice Lee on 30 June and on 02 July 2026 Case No.: 24CV444353 Stacy Kimbel; Tammy Silva v. Kim Huynh Date: 30 June 2026 9:00 am Line Number: 01 ----oooOooo--- Motion of Defendant Kim Huynh to Compel Plaintiff Tammy Silva to Provide Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two, and Request to Production of Documents, Set Three,and for Monetary Sanctions.
Defendant seeks to compel plaintiff Tammy Silva to provide further responses to special interrogatories, set two and further responses to a request for production of documents, set three. Moving party defendant also seeks monetary sanctions. Plaintiff Tammy Silva has not filed opposition to the motion. The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff Tammy Silva is to provide answers to the foregoing discovery requests within 10 days of the filing and service of this order. Objections are deemed WAIVED. Defendant makes a request for monetary sanctions. The request is not code-compliant and is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a formal motion requesting sanctions.
Code of Civil Procedure, § 2023.040 states, in part: “A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.”
A party filing a discovery motion cannot recover sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h), 2031.320(b) and 2033.290(d) where no opposition was filed, because the responding party did not “. . . unsuccessfully make[] or oppose[]. . .” the motions. In fact, this Court often suspects that a clever responding party might deliberately choose not to file opposition for the above reason.
Since no opposition was filed, the correct citation of authority would have been California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a) which states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”
In the future, counsel would be advised to add the following language in the notice of motion and in the memorandum of points and authorities: "If you wish to oppose the relief requested in this motion, you must timely file a written reply in compliance with all Court rules. If you fail to do so, the court may treat your failure to respond as a waiver of your right to oppose this motion and may grant the relief requested pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a)."
___________________________ ____________________________________________ DATED: HON. SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN Judge of the Superior Court County Of Santa Clara
---oooOooo---