STEINBRUNER v. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, et al.

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: AUGUST 17, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.

TENTATIVE RULINGS ARE NOT POSTED IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER CASES

Notice to prevailing parties: Local Rule 2.10.01 requires you to submit a proposed formal order incorporating, verbatim, the language of any tentative ruling – or attaching and incorporating the tentative by reference - or an order consistent with the announced ruling of the Court, in accordance with California Rule of Court 3.1312. Such proposed order is required even if the prevailing party submitted a proposed order prior to the hearing with two exceptions: (1) in unopposed matters where the moving party has provided a detailed proposed order or JCC form of order, or (2) where the tentative is simply to “grant”. Failure to comply with Local Rule 2.10.01 may result in the imposition of sanctions following an order to show cause hearing, if a proposed order is not timely filed.

No. 25CV03610

STEINBRUNER v. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, et al.

DEFENDANT COUNTY’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SETS ONE, AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS

The unopposed motion is granted. Plaintiff shall provide verified code-compliant responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents no later than September 18, 2026.

Defendant County of Santa Cruz demonstrated it served the discovery at issue on December 4, 2025. (Graham Declaration, Exs. 1-3.) Plaintiff’s emailed responses were deficient and not verified, therefore amounting to no response. (Graham Declaration, ¶¶ 7-11.) The court declines to impose sanctions against plaintiff at this time.

Despite proper service by email and mail, plaintiff did not file any timely opposition.