What is a Motion for Order Compelling Deposition?

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action... fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(a).

The Legislature’s use of the word “or” reflects it intended to establish three disjunctive categories of conduct with corresponding remedies. Eddie E. v. Super. Ct. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 319, 327. If a deponent fails to appear or appears and refuses to proceed, a court may compel the deponent’s attendance and testimony. Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(a). If a deponent fails to produce documents, production may be compelled as a remedy. Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(a).

The motion for order compelling deposition “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(b)(1). The motion must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration and a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance at the deposition. Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(b)(2); Leko v. Cornerstone Building Inspection Service (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1124; Paragon Real Estate Group of San Francisco, Inc. v. Hansen (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 177, 184. The California Rules of Court do not require the moving party to file a separate statement in connection with the distinct motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 to compel the deponent to appear for examination. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).

A party may also move to compel a deponent to answer a question posed at a deposition when the deponent appeared but objected or did not properly respond to a question. Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.480. Such a motion must be accompanied by a separate statement. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a); Weinstein v. Blumberg (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 316, 318–19. It must be made within 60 days after the completion of the record of deposition, and it must be accompanied be a meet and confer declaration. Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.480(b). Additionally, “[n]ot less than five days prior to the hearing on this motion, the moving party shall lodge with the court a certified copy of any parts of the stenographic transcript of the deposition that are relevant to the motion. If a deposition is recorded by audio or video technology, the moving party is required to lodge a certified copy of a transcript of any parts of the deposition that are relevant to the motion.” Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.480(h).

Useful Rulings on Motion for Order Compelling Deposition

Recent Rulings on Motion for Order Compelling Deposition

CARLOS HALILI VS FCA US, LLC

Legal Standard “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document … described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Legal Standard “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document … described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance

  • Hearing

K. V. SADDLEBACK VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

(“Plaintiff”), for issue and evidentiary sanctions against Defendant Saddleback Valley Unified School District (the “District”) or, alternatively, for an order compelling the District to comply with this Court’s August 12, 2019 discovery order (the “Discovery Order”). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s Objections to the Declaration of Kellian Summers are overruled.

  • Hearing

SOLTER V. WU

1) Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written) 2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories Defendants Hien Wu (“Wu”), Nadya Lesmana, and Hien Wu and Nadya Lesmana, Trustees of the Hien Wu and Nadya Lesmana Living Trust Dated April 11, 2016 (collectively, “Defendants”) seek an order compelling plaintiff Frederick Solter (“Plaintiff”) to appear at his deposition and imposing monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,228.30 against Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

GENESIS MEDIA LLC VS OWNZONES MEDIA NETWORK INC ET AL

Ownzones and Goman (“Moving Defendants”) now move for an order compelling a further deposition of Nahai. Nahai opposes the motion.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

STOLLER V. GENERAL MOTORS LLC

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480, states, in part, “(a) If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production. [¶] (b) This motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition, and shall be accompanied

  • Hearing

BARBARA DARWISH VS. DENNIS P RILEY

(API) SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR ITS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S JANUARY 3, 2020 ORDER COMPELLING API’S COMPLIANCE WITH DEFENDANTS’ DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Dept. T 8:30 a.m. November 23, 2020 [TENTATIVE] ORDER: The Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why Third-Party deponent Approved Plans Inc.

  • Hearing

DAVID CHAVEZ VS FCA US, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party . . . fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document . . . described in the deposition notice, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production . . . of any document . . . described in the deposition notice.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

IYABO SAMUEL VS LYFT INC., ET AL.

Request for Production of Documents On receipt of a response to an inspection demand, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. CCP §2031.310(a).

  • Hearing

CARLOTTA PEART VS WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT, INC., ET AL.

RELIEF REQUESTED: Warner Defendants move for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to their Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 23, 39, 40, and 41. Warner Defendants further request associated sanctions in the amount of $2,764.

  • Hearing

EDVIN MEHRABIAN VS EDUARDO JIMENEZ, ET AL.

RELIEF REQUESTED: Eduardo moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to serve further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One and requests associated sanctions in the amount of $2,000. Eduardo moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to serve further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and requests associated sanctions in the amount of $2,000.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

SALVADOR RUBIO VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

Request for Production of Documents On receipt of a response to an inspection demand, the demanding party may move for an order compelling further responses to the demand if the demanding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) an objection in the response is without merit or too general. CCP § 2031.310(a).

  • Hearing

AIDA OGANESIAN, ET AL. VS CAH-2014-1 BORROWER, LLC, ET AL.

RELIEF REQUESTED: Defendants move for an order compelling Oganesian, Garegin, and Narine to appear for depositions within ten days of the instant hearing. Defendants further request associated sanctions in the amounts of $1,365 for each motion. DISCUSSION: Standard of Review – Compel Deposition – CCP § 2025.450 permits a party to seek a motion to compel a deposition where a deponent fails to appear or produce documents at a deposition.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

PIETRO V NPI FUND ET AL.

Order Granting Ex Parte Application for Order Compelling Defendant Franklin Loffer t Attend Deposition and Produce Documents, issued on October 2, 2020 in Santa Cru County Superior Court Case No. 19CV01873: Granted. 3. Order Granting Ex Parte Application for Second Order Compelling Defendant Frankli Loffer to Attend Deposition and Produce Documents, issued on October 14, 2020 i Santa Cruz County Superior Court Case No. 19CV01873: Granted 4.

  • Hearing

VILLARIN VS JONES

Plaintiff Adelaide Villarin brings this motion, seeking an Order compelling the deposition of Defendant Jacque Jones. As set forth in plaintiff's moving papers, the Court is very familiar with this litigation, having served as the trial judge in the original litigation. In the original litigation the jury found defendant violated of Civil Code §1708.85 on August 25, 2017.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JUDI BEDDOW, ET AL. VS ALTEC, INC.,, ET AL.

.)¿¿ “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party . . . fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document . . . described in the deposition notice, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production . . . of any document . . . described in the deposition notice.”¿¿(Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

KATHERINE BIGELOW VS WESTERN ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant’s further response to Nos 4.1 and 4.2.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

EUN AH KIM ET AL VS PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM SOUTHERN CALIFO

DISCUSSION Plaintiffs request an order compelling defendant Providence to produce the following employees and agents for depositions pursuant to CCP 2025.450 and documents set forth in the deposition notice: Brenda Alejandre (sitter on page 8 of the chart); Sitter 2 (sitter on page 12 of the chart); Howard Wang, R.N. (charge nurse); Ryan Minich, R.N.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

JOHN RIOS VS CITY OF BALDWIN PARK

Analysis Rios moves for an order compelling Tam to attend and testify at a deposition. The City opposes[6]. a. Procedural Issues (i) Service The City asserts that the motion should be denied because the subpoena is defective and unenforceable because it was improperly served. Opp. at 5-6.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

C W DRIVER INC VS LEGENDARY STRUCTURES INC ET AL

On motion, if a party “fails to obey an order compelling attendance, testimony, and production, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction” as provided in Section 2030.010, et seq. (C.C.P. §2025.450(h).) The Court, “after notice to any affected party… and after opportunity for hearing,” may impose terminating and/or monetary sanctions for misuses of the discovery process. (C.C.P. §2023.030(a) and (d).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MARCO VALLEJOS VS QUALITY PARKING SERVICE, INC.

. §2025.450(b)(2) provides that, “[t]he motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition… by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling the deposition of Akbary. Akbary’s objections to the Third Notice were not valid objections under C.C.P. §2025.410(a).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARIA ARROYO VS CITY OF BELLFLOWER ET AL

General Negligence “If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document...the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” (CCP § 2025.480(a).) CCP § 2025.610(b) allows, upon a showing of good cause, a party to obtain a second session of a deposition. Paul Zwiep was the maintenance supervisor for the City of Bellflower until one year before Plaintiff’s incident occurred.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STEPHEN EIGES VS ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT

LEGAL AUTHORITY Interrogatories If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. CCP §2030.290(b). The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served.

  • Hearing

STEPHEN EIGES VS ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT

LEGAL AUTHORITY Interrogatories If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. CCP §2030.290(b). The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served.

  • Hearing

ANI MATEVOSYAN, ET AL. VS ANA BONILLA CARRILLO, ET AL.

DISCUSSION C.C.P. § 2030.300 states, in relevant part: “On receipt of a response to interrogatories, the propounding party may move for an order compelling a further response if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply: (1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete. (2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate. (3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 195     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.