Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Santa Clara records we believe the plaintiff is represented by attorney Phyllis Andelin who is also being sanctioned.

Case Name: DUNKLE V. SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY
Case No: 1-13-CV-239315
Date: April 4, 2014
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept: 3

Heidi Dunkle (“Plaintiff”) brings this motion to compel San Jose State University, through the Board of Trustees of the California State University (“Defendant”), to provide further responses to form interrogatories. Plaintiff and Defendant both seek monetary sanctions.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses is DENIED. Motions to compel further responses to interrogatories under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, subdivision (a), must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration setting forth facts showing that the moving party made a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. [“CCP”], § 2030.300, subd. (b); CCP, § 2016.040.) The Court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel did not comply with the meet and confer requirement.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant and its attorney is DENIED, as Plaintiff failed to cite the legal basis for the sanctions she seeks. (CCP, § 2023.040; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1103(b).)

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel is GRANTED IN PART in the amount of $1,700. (CCP, § 2023.020.) Accordingly, Plaintiff and her counsel shall pay $1,700 to counsel for Defendant within 20 days of the date of the filing of the written order.