Tentative Ruling: Robert Stiglmier vs Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Dept et al
Case Number
25CV08081
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Wed, 10/07/2026 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Motion to Compel
Tentative Ruling
Robert Stiglmier is self-represented
Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Dept is represented by Heather Smith
RULING
The unopposed motion is granted.
Plaintiff Robert Stiglmier shall serve verified responses, without objection, to Defendants’ form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and request for production of documents, set one, and to produce all documents identified to be produced in the written response to the request for production of documents, within seven Court days of service of this order on Plaintiff. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subds. (a), (b), 2031.300, subds. (a), (b).) The Court awards monetary sanctions in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff Robert Stiglmier in the amount of $1,325.00, to be paid to counsel for Defendants within 30 calendar days of service of this order on Plaintiff. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)
Analysis
On December 29, 2025, Plaintiff Robert Stiglmier filed his complaint in this action alleging a personal injury caused by Defendants County of Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department, County of Santa Barbara and Deputy Donald Friedli. On April 30, 2026, Defendants filed their answer generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 17 affirmative defenses.
On April 30, 2026, Defendants served on Plaintiff their form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and request for production of documents, set one. (Smith decl., ¶¶ 6-9 & exhibits 1-3.) Verified responses were due on June 2, 2026, but no responses were received by Defendants. (Smith decl., ¶¶ 10-11.) In a meet and confer letter sent to Plaintiff, Defendants extended the time to respond to June 18. (Smith decl., ¶¶ 11-12 & exhibit 4.) Plaintiff then requested and Defendants granted an extension to July 22, 2026, a subsequent extension to August 12, 2026, and a further extension to September 2. (Smith decl., ¶¶ 13-17 & exhibits 5-8.) No responses have since been served. (Smith decl., ¶ 24.)
On September 8, 2026, Defendants filed their motion to compel responses to this discovery and for monetary sanctions. On September 14, 2026, the Court granted Defendants’ ex parte application to advance the hearing on the motion to compel to this date, requiring opposition to be filed by September 23, 2026. No opposition was filed.
On September 30, Defendants filed a notice stating that they had not received opposition to the motion.
The Court’s Conclusions
The Motion should be granted.