DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23CV425926·santaclara·Civil·Personal Injury
Hearing 3 months agoGRANTED; sanctions granted in part

Tony Sladek et al. v. Stanford Health Care et al.

motion to compel the production of documents

Hearing date
May 26, 2026
Department
10
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$1,639.95$39.95$1,600

Parties

PlaintiffTony Sladek
DefendantStanford Health Care

Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2210

DATE: May 26, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

Line 4 23CV425926 Tony Sladek et al. v. Defendants’ motion to compel the production of documents at plaintiff Stanford Health Care Tony Sladek’s deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480.) Notice is et al. proper and the motion is unopposed. Failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c).) Failure to oppose a motion leads to the presumption that the non-moving party has no meritorious arguments. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins.

Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 489.) The motion relates to requests for the production of documents at the third session of plaintiff’s deposition. Defendants’ motion indicates plaintiff neither objected nor produced documents responsive to request Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 17. The documents relate to plaintiff’s finances. Defendants argue the documents are discoverable because plaintiff alleges the injury he allegedly sustained while in defendants’ care led to loss of income and business opportunity related to a rental property business.

On good cause shown, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to produce documents responsive to those requests without objections, no later than July 1, 2026. Defendants’ request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. Mandatory sanctions are imposed against plaintiff in the amount of $1,639.95 (consisting of the $39.95 filing fee and $1,600 in attorney fees (four hours at $400/hour).

4

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