BENNETT vs SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al.

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.

23CV005472: BENNETT vs SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al. 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoenas in Department 8D

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.

*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING:

Moving party’s notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving Party is directed to contact Defendant’s counsel and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving party is unable to contact Defendant’s counsel prior to hearing, moving party is ordered to appear at the hearing.

Plaintiff in pro per Austin Bennett’s (“Plaintiff”) “Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions” is DENIED.

As an initial matter, the Court notes Plaintiff’s moving papers do not comply with California Rules of Court, Rules 3.1110(a) or 3.1112(a) and Code of Civil Procedure section 1010, because Plaintiff does not include a notice of motion. Plaintiff was required to file a notice of motion that states the nature of the order being sought, the grounds upon which it was made, and the papers upon which it is based. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1112(a) [“the papers filed in support of a motion must consist of at least the following: (1) A notice of hearing on the motion”]; Cal.

Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110(a) [“A notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order”]; Code Civ. Proc. §1010 [“[n]otices must be in writing, and the notice of a motion . . must state when, and the grounds upon which it will be made, and the papers, if any, upon which it is to be based”].)[1]

Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions (“Motion”) fails to identify which discovery requests are the subjects of the motion, when they were served, whether they were the subjects of prior motions, and whether any objections or

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005472: BENNETT vs SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al. 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoenas in Department 8D

responses were served in response to the requests. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts in his “Introduction” section of the motion:

This motion concerns a simple discovery issue.

After Plaintiff sought production of records relevant to this action, defense counsel asserted procedural objections to Plaintiff's subpoena. However, rather than stand upon those objections, defense counsel expressly represented that she was “working to obtain documents” and expected to respond within two to three weeks. At the same time, she requested that Plaintiff execute another HIPAA authorization and provide a copy of his identification so that his medical records could be obtained.

...

For more than three years Plaintiff has attempted to obtain these records—first through the California Public Records Act, and later through formal discovery— without meaningful success. The Court’s intervention is now necessary, not because Plaintiff failed to cooperate, but because Defendants failed to honor their own written representations.

Plaintiff therefore respectfully requests an order compelling immediate production of the requested records and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

(Motion at p. 2:4-11, 2:24-3:2.)

In the “Legal Standard” section, Plaintiff cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 (regarding enforcing subpoenas), sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 (regarding misuse of the discovery process), and the Court’s “broad authority to manage discovery to ensure that cases are decided on their merits rather than through procedural gamesmanship.” (Motion at p. 3:3-16.)

However, neither the motion nor the supporting declaration set forth any subpoena or particular discovery request which Plaintiff seeks to compel.[2] Plaintiff’s failure to include a notice of motion is a fatal deficiency; it is unclear exactly what discovery Plaintiff is seeking to compel and the basis for such a request; thus, the motion could be DENIED on this basis alone.

However, because Defendants Sacramento County Jail et al. filed an opposition to the motion, arguably waiving the defective notice, the Court further addresses the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005472: BENNETT vs SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al. 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoenas in Department 8D

arguments made by Plaintiff.

To the extent Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant to produce discovery sought through subpoenas, California Public Records Act requests, and extended meet and confer efforts, which Plaintiff contends was wrongfully withheld, such a request was addressed by the Court in its September 11, 2025 Order. (Minute Order, file 9/11/25 at pp. 4-6 [“As mentioned, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant to produce ‘all discovery wrongfully withheld’ including discovery sought ‘through subpoenas, California Public Records Act requests and extended meet and confer efforts.’”].) The Court denied the motion. (Ibid.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(b) provides, in relevant part:

A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which case it shall be shown by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.

(See California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. Virga (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 30, 43 [“a renewed motion must be based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, and must be accompanied by a supporting affidavit.”].) “The nature of a motion is determined by the nature of the relief sought, not by the label attached to it.” (Ibid.)

Here, based on the arguments and submissions by Plaintiff, the Court finds that this is a renewed motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(b). Plaintiff seeks relief based on the same grounds raised and argued in connection with the September 11, 2025 Order. Indeed, Plaintiff titles his motion as a “Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions,” and in reply, Plaintiff references arguments made during the September 11, 2025 hearing and attaches a transcript of the hearing. Specifically, in his moving papers, Plaintiff references a representation by counsel, as follows: “That being said, I am working to obtain documents and hope to have a response to you within 2-3 weeks.” (Motion at p. 4:6-7.)

However, Plaintiff fails to meet the requirements of section 1008(b), showing “what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” Plaintiff’s declaration does not set forth new facts, circumstances, or law. Rather, Plaintiff’s declaration references a May 12, 2025 email chain, a May 13, 2025 email chain, and a HIPAA

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005472: BENNETT vs SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al. 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoenas in Department 8D

authorization. Based on Plaintiff’s submissions, these materials were expressly discussed during the September 11, 2025 hearing:

[MR BENNETT]: But here's what I wanted to point out, specifically -- and I included these exhibits -- in May 13, 2025, Defense Counsel Kristlenne Vicuna stated in writing and it's in the exhibits. This is what she writes (indicating reading.): To clarify I stated that your prior subpoena was procedurally and substantially defective. That being said, I am working to obtain documents and hope to have a response to you within two to three weeks. And then she asked for me to sign a HIPAA release, you know.

After this she requested a signed HIPAA release, which I did promptly. And her conduct was not only an acknowledgement of a subpoena it was an agreement to comply. And if she truly believed that service was defective, she would have moved to quash it but she didn’t. And -- and I provided the points and authority in the -- in -- in -- in a motion there. But providing one here it says (indicating reading.): A party may waive objections to discovery if they respond without timely objecting or by participating in the process.

And that's exactly not only what she's been doing but she's been stringing me along. . . . .

(Exh. A to Reply at p. 14:1-24.)

As such, these are not new facts that would support a renewed motion under section 1008(b).[3] Rather, these facts were expressly raised and argued in support of Plaintiff’s prior motion, which was denied.

Finally, to the extent Plaintiff seeks an order compelling any further discovery pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 and 2023.030, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. These sections concern the misuse of discovery and merely allow the Court to impose sanctions. It does not authorize an order compelling any discovery. To the extend Plaintiff seeks sanctions pursuant to these sections, for the reasons set forth above, the Court does not find that sanctions are supported or warranted under these sections. As such, the motion for sanctions is DENIED.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV005472: BENNETT vs SACRAMENTO COUNTY JAIL, et al. 07/29/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoenas in Department 8D

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

Because Plaintiff did not include a notice of motion, he also failed to provide the

Court’s address and notice of Local Rule 1.06. [2] A motion to compel compliance with a subpoena “shall be made no later than 60 days

after the completion of the record of the deposition, and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480.) To the extent Plaintiff is seeking to compel compliance with an unidentified subpoena, Plaintiff fails to provide sufficient information showing that the motion was timely made, and he fails to provide the required meet and confer declaration. [3] To the extent Plaintiff’s motion could be interpreted as a motion for reconsideration,

such a motion would be untimely as it was not filed “within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order.” (Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a).) The time limitation set forth in section 1008, subdivision (a), is jurisdictional and controlling as to applications for reconsideration by the parties to an action (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (e); Kerns v. CSE Ins. Group (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 368, 391).