DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC25630898·sf·Civil·Discovery Dispute
Hearing in 2 daysMotion to compel further answer to form interrogatory 15.1 is granted and request for monetary sanctions is denied.

BRIGID ACUNA VS. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

Motion To Compel Further Answer To Form Interrogatory - General, No. 15.1; Request For Monetary Sanctions

Hearing date
Aug 24, 2026
Department
302
Prevailing
Mixed

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffBrigid Acuna
DefendantThe Regents of the University of California

Attorneys

Paul V. Bennettfor Plaintiff

Ruling

Matter on calendar for Monday, August 24, 2026, Line 11, PLAINTIFF BRIGID ACUNA's Motion To Compel Further Answer To Form Interrogatory - General, No. 15.1; Request For Monetary Sanctions.

1 - Plaintiff Brigid Acuna's motion to compel further answer to form interrogatory 15.1 is granted and her request for monetary sanctions is denied. No later than September 22, 2026 defendant The Regents of the University of California must serve a verified code-compliant further response to 15.1 based on the Regents' knowledge as of the date of the further response.

Propounding a 15.1 interrogatory early in the case, especially before the party to whom it is propounded has not yet filed an answer, runs the risk of an incomplete and essentially useless response such as the initial response provided by the Regents. However, discovery is not a game, but rather an important exercise in assisting the parties and the court at achieving fair adjudication. In that spirit, the Regents must provide the best response to 15.1 that they are now able to provide.

As a technical matter the Regents' position does not lack substantial justification. As an aside, Acuna's statement at 2:19-22 of her reply memorandum that "Three rounds of correspondence" is code-compliant is mistaken. The current version of CCP 2016.040(a) requires the parties to confer "either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue" in a discovery motion.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/HEK). | |

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share