George Brinsmead vs. Elk Grove Unified School District

34-2021-00292775-CU-PO-GDS: George Brinsmead vs. Elk Grove Unified School District 07/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two to Plaintiff George Brinsmead in Department 16D

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Elk Grove School District, et al.’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff George Brinsmead’s responses to request for production (set two) is granted as set forth below.

No opposition to the motion was filed. A party’s failure to oppose a motion is construed as a concession on the merits of the motion. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)

No later than July 30, 2026, Plaintiff George Brinsmead shall serve verified responses, without objections, to Defendants’ request for production (set one) as requested in the moving papers.

To the extent Defendants seek to compel Plaintiff to produce documents through this same motion, the Court finds that the motion is premature. First, Defendants did not indicate in the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00292775-CU-PO-GDS: George Brinsmead vs. Elk Grove Unified School District 07/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two to Plaintiff George Brinsmead in Department 16D

notice of motion that it was seeking to compel compliance pursuant to CCP § 2031.320. Second, Plaintiff has yet to serve responses. A motion to compel production is only proper where a party has agreed to produce documents but has failed to do so in compliance with its statement. (CCP § 2031.320(a).) Nonetheless, the Court expects that the parties will cooperate to coordinate production of responsive documents upon Plaintiff’s service of its responses in light of this Court’s order.

Defendants’ request for sanction is denied as the notice failed to comply with CCP § 2023.040 which requires that “[a] request for sanctions 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.” (CCP § 2023.040.) The notice of motion simply indicates that Defendants request an order “that Plaintiff pay the sum of $6,885” and for evidentiary sanctions. However, there are three Plaintiffs in this action: George Brinsmead, Deborah Shen, and George Brinsmead as successor in interest to Genevieve Brinsmead. A request for sanctions against “Plaintiff” in a multiple plaintiff case fails to identify the party against whom sanctions are sought as required by CCP § 2023.040.

In any event, even if sanctions were properly requested, they would be denied as the motion was unopposed. Although California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348 purports to authorize sanctions if the motion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governing this discovery authorize sanctions only if the motion was unsuccessfully made or opposed. Any order imposing sanctions under the C.R.C. must conform to the conditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing sanctions. (Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v. Firmaterr, Inc. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 355.) However, repeated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an abuse of the discovery process and award sanctions on that basis. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 481.)

Notably, while CCP § 2023.010 sets forth an example of a misuse of the discovery process, CCP § 2023.010 does not authorize sanctions on its own. CCP § 2023.030 sets forth available sanctions for misuse of discovery. CCP § 2023.030(a) states that the Court “may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” The Court simply notes that CCP § 2023.030(a) states that the Court 'may' impose sanctions for a misuse of the discovery process “to the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00292775-CU-PO-GDS: George Brinsmead vs. Elk Grove Unified School District 07/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two to Plaintiff George Brinsmead in Department 16D

this title”, but that the more specific statute governing the instant motion, CCP § 2031.300 only permits sanctions if the motion was made or opposed without substantial justification.

Further, any request for evidentiary sanctions, even if properly noticed would be denied on the additional basis that Defendants fail to even identify the form of the evidentiary sanction requested.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Defendants’ counsel is ordered to notify Plaintiff’s counsel immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing in person, via Zoom or by telephone, in the event Plaintiff’s counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.