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

VAZGEN MIRZAKHANYAN VS JV & T CAPITAL LLC ET AL

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, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

VILLA DEL MAR HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION VS LANDWIN LLC ET AL

However, because Plaintiff learned at the deposition of Landwin’s PMK in October 2019 that responsive documents may exist which were not produced, the motion to compel compliance is appropriate, rather than a motion to compel further responses to requests for production. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling compliance.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

WHITNEY SPRINGER VS KEITH STEPHENSON, ET AL.

In Calcor, the Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate issue directing the trial court to vacate its order compelling the defendant to produce records because the plaintiff had failed to provide specific facts showing good cause for their production. Subsequently, in Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

ELLIS MCGEHEE VS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, ET AL.

LEGAL AUTHORITY CCP §2025.460 states, “(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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

ANURAG GUPTA VS SHARISE MARIE BARBOSA

LEGAL STANDARD California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (a) provides: “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . , 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 and testimony, and the production for inspection of any

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

JAIME ALFARO, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

LILIA RIOS, ET AL. VS EDGAR G. VILLAMARIN

Additionally, if a party fails to obey an order compelling further response to the requests for admission, the Court may deem those requests admitted and impose monetary sanctions. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (e).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

RANVIR KAUR V. CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.

“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…[a]n answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete[,] [a]n exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate[, or] [a]n objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

SEYED SADEGHI VS GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Section 2025.480, subdivision (a) provides “[i]f 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., 2025.480, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA VS. EQUALTOX, INC., APC

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

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

ANGEL CASTILLO-GARIBAY VS JANE HOKSIU WU

Defendant also moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to appear for a deposition. Defendant initially noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for December 20, 2019. Plaintiff objected to that date. (See Declaration of Leesa A. Freed, Exhibit B.) Defendant re-noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for January 27, 2020. Plaintiff objected to that date but provided no alternative dates. (See id., ¶¶ 6-8 & Exh. D.) Defendant proceeded with the deposition as noticed. (Id., ¶¶ 6-8.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

TALIN KESHISHIAN VS HENRY MAYO NEWHALL MEDICAL HOSPITAL ET A

F-47 Date: 7/9/20 Case #BC712952 MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION Motion filed 12/19/19. MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Talin Keshishian RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital (Defendant) to produce Louisiana Lising, R.N. for the completion of her deposition and the production of documents as set forth in the deposition notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

RODNEY DOUGLAS CARR VS NOVO NORDISK INC ET AL

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . ., 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 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

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

IRMA RAMIREZ VS SUPER CENTER CONCEPTS, INC., ET AL.

notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HTL AUTOMOTIVE INC VS PACIFIC LIFT AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY INC

If, after service of a deposition notice, a party deponent fails to appear, testify, or produce documents or tangible things for inspection without having served a valid objection under CCP § 2025.410, the deposing party may move for an order compelling attendance, testimony, and production. (CCP § 2025.450(a).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ASSADULLAH SHAHAND, ET AL. VS NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, ET AL.

To prevail, a party moving for an order compelling further responses to a document production demand must first offer facts demonstrating “good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) This burden “is met simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

EDDIE URQUIZA VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC

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, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

JAMES R MELVILLE ET AL VS OLYMPUS AMERICA INC ET AL

Even were we to ignore that the statements purporting to justify an order compelling Calcor to produce its documents and other materials are unverified, they still fail. There is an absence of specific facts relating to each category of materials sought to be produced; the justifications offered for the production are mere generalities. The very vice of the subpoena's promiscuity is well illustrated by Thiem's inability to provide focused, fact-specific justifications for its demands.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

ZIV BAHAT, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

If, after service of a deposition notice, a party deponent fails to appear, testify, or produce documents or tangible things for inspection without having served a valid objection under CCP § 2025.410, the deposing party may move for an order compelling attendance, testimony, and production. (CCP § 2025.450(a).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

RICHARD CAMACHO VS EMANUEL SANCHEZ ET AL

CCP §2025.450(a) requires the Court to grant a motion to compel deposition unless the deponent has served a valid objection to the notice of deposition. Plaintiff did not object to the notice of deposition but did not appear. Of note, any opposition to the motion was due on or before 6/24/20. The Court has not received opposition to the motion. The motion seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to appear for deposition on 5/22/20 at 10:00 a.m. at the Law Office of Mark R. Weiner & Associates, 655 N.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

VINCENT E OBNILLAS HERNANDEZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

LEGAL AUTHORITY CCP §2025.450(a) provides: “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, . . , 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 and testimony, and the production for inspection

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

RICHARD DEL ROSARIO VS JOSEPH KAISER GABRIEL ET AL

Therefore, assuming the successful completion of Kamil’s deposition in June 2020, an order compelling Ibrahin’s deposition is unnecessary. b. Monetary Sanctions Plaintiff requests that monetary sanctions be imposed against Ibrahin for his repeated failures to appear for his own deposition without substantial justification.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

GREENKRAFT, INC. V. GEMAYEL

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Non-Party (Edwards Transit Express Group, Inc.) to comply with Plaintiff’s Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued on 7-31-2018. (Lazo Decl., ¶ 5 and Exhibit A.) Plaintiff issued the subpoenas to Non-Party on 7-3-18 and 5-14-19 along with a copy of a Notice of Ruling of the 1-8-19 Motion for Protective Orders. (Lazo Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6, and Exhibits A and B.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

MAOHAI ZHENG VS HUA MAO ET AL

, 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, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CALIFORNIA WATERS DEVELOPMENT INC ET AL VS DOMINGUEZ INVESTM

If, after service of a deposition notice, a party deponent fails to appear, testify, or produce documents or tangible things for inspection without having served a valid objection under CCP § 2025.410, the deposing party may move for an order compelling attendance, testimony, and production. (CCP § 2025.450(a).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 175     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.