What is a Motion for Order Shortening Time to Respond to Propounded Discovery?

A party may move to shorten the time to respond to discovery through a "Motion for Order Shortening Time to Respond to Discovery." The normal discovery timeline and standard of review for the aforementioned motion are provided below.

Normal Discovery Timeline

Under Code of Civil Procedure § 2024.020, the discovery cut off and the cut off for motions seeking discovery responses is based on the initial trial date. A party on whom written discovery has been served, must provide an initial verified response within 30 days of service. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260(a), 2031.260(a)). An extra five days will be allotted where service occurs by mail. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1013). Failure to respond in a timely manner results in the waiver of objections, including those objections based on attorney-client privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.260(a), 2031.260(a)). By failing to respond, the offending party waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a)).

Standard of Review

A propounding party may move the Court for an order shortening time to respond to propounded discovery under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2030.260(a), 2031.260(a), and 2033.250(a). The court will review the motion under these code sections.

Code of Civ. Proc. § 2030.260

(a) Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response.

Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.260

(a) Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared in the action, unless on motion of the party making the demand, the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the party to whom the demand has been directed, the court has extended the time for response.

Code of Civ. Proc. § 2033.250

(a) Within 30 days after service of requests for admission, the party to whom the requests are directed shall serve the original of the response to them on the requesting party, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared, unless on motion of the requesting party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response.

Useful Resources for Motion for Order Shortening Time to Respond to Propounded Discovery

Recent Rulings on Motion for Order Shortening Time to Respond to Propounded Discovery

1-25 of 10000 results

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Turner did not specify the ultimate material facts as to the economic loss rule as to each plaintiff’s negligence claim in its Separate Statement, instead reciting verbatim deposition testimony and other discovery responses, which left it to the Court the cumbersome task of trying to determine whether Turner established that Plaintiffs only have economic damages. (SSUF 44-61.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

EARL BULL ET AL VS SUPERIOR MOBILITY INC ET AL

Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses - Compelling Cross-Complainant Pride Mobility Products Corporation's Further Responses to Cross-Complainant/Cross-Defendant Superior Mobility, Inc.'s Special Interrogatories, (Set 3) scheduled for 02/11/2021 are continued to 02/16/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 29 at Spring Street Courthouse. The Moving Party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. RX UNLIMITED,LLC ETAL

.: BC670620 ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY CIVIL DISCOVERY AS TO CERTAIN DEFENDANTS Date: February 5, 2021 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 On the Court’s own motion, the Court continues the hearing on the motion for an order staying civil discovery[1], filed by Defendants Rx Unlimited LLC, Brian Goldstein, and Clifton Braddy, scheduled for 2/5/2021 at 8:30 a.m. at Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 56 to 2/17/2021 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 56. Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Feb 05, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

RE: PET’N TO APPROVE 3RD & FNL ACCT & RPT OF TRUSTEE FROM 4-1-19 - 2-3-20; FEES

Appearances to report status, including discovery 2. Proof of service in the manner provided in CCP § 415.10 (30 days personal service) or CCP § 415.30 (30 days proof of mailing with Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt) on each person claiming an interest in, or having title to or possession of, the property. PrC § 851(a)(2) Note: Response and Objection filed by Annbritt Erickson 3-27-19.

  • Hearing

    Feb 02, 2021

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RAQUEL HERNANDEZ GARCIA VS MATHEW FARZAM, ET AL.

.: 19STCV27531 Hearing Date: February 4, 2021 Defendant’s motion to compel initial discovery responses is GRANTED. Defendant is awarded $350.00 in sanctions.

  • Hearing

    Feb 02, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ANTONIO RAMOS, ET AL VS. HOME CONSTRUCTION SOLUTIONS CORP.

A REVIEW OF THE DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE SHOWS THAT THE COURT'S RULING ON THE MOTIONS MAY HAVE AN IMPACT ON DEFENDANT HOME CONSTRUCTION. AS IT IS IN BANKRUPTY AND CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING ON THE MOTIONS, THE COURT FINDS THAT THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE REQUIRE THE MOTIONS TO BE CONTINUED. THE COURT ALSO NOTES THAT SOME OF THE NOTICE OF MOTIONS SEEK FEES AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF AND SOME AGAINST BOTH PLAINTIFF AND COUNSEL.

  • Hearing

    Feb 02, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MILDRED MANCE, BY AND THROUGH HER REPRESENATIVE AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, REGINA MANCE VS GLEN PARK AT VALLEY VILLAGE

The discovery and motions cut-off dates shall be based on this trial date. The Court shall hold a hearing on May 7, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. to determine whether the trial must be continued, per Code of Civil Procedure section 36(f), due to the pandemic. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

SEAN PERKIN, ET AL. VS CALIFORNIA FAIR PLAN ASSOCIATION

If the parties experience difficulties with discovery, the court requires, at a minimum, telephonic meet and confer, and then prefers the parties set an Informal Discovery Conference before filing a motion to compel. If there is a complete failure to respond at all to propounded discovery, the court requires telephonic contact with opposing counsel to find out status of the discovery responses before filing a motion to compel and a declaration reporting on what occurred during that meet and confer.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MILDRED MANCE, BY AND THROUGH HER REPRESENATIVE AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, REGINA MANCE VS GLEN PARK AT VALLEY VILLAGE

The discovery and motions cut-off dates shall be based on this trial date. The Court shall hold a hearing on May 7, 2021, at 9:00 a.m. to determine whether the trial must be continued, per Code of Civil Procedure section 36(f), due to the pandemic. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2021

ROY E STEPHENSON VS HICKINGBOTHAM LIMITED ET AL

Counterbalancing Section 2031.060 is Code of Civil Procedure Section 2017.010, which provides that “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2021

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

DAVID FU & ASSOCIATES VS IQBAL "TONY" AKA IQBAL AKA TONY ASHRAF

.: 20BBCV00358 Hearing Date: January 29, 2021 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses; requests for sanctions There are 4 discovery motions on calendar.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AARON JUSTIS, ET AL. VS. MICHAEL HODGES

Justis argues that despite the Court’s prior order on FROG No. 17.1 and the Court’s warning for the parties to cooperate with regard to discovery issues, Hodges’ amended responses (as of September 28, 2020) are still not code compliant and still contain the same deficiencies as noted in Plaintiff’s original motion.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DARLENE SALISBURY HORNBEAK VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, AND DOES 1-100

Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488. Here, Plaintiff alleges Barreto was the negligent driver that caused Plaintiff’s injuries, but Plaintiff was unaware of Barreto’s true name until after discovery commenced.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CIELO ROSADO VS CITY OF EL MONTE, ET AL.

The court has reviewed the subject discovery. After interposing objections to Nos. 1, 2, 4, 9, 11- 13, 15-23 and 30-34, Plaintiff provided the following substantive response to same: “Respondent will produce non privileged documents responsive to this request.” City’s counsel Barr advises that Plaintiff has failed to produce documents responsive to these requests. (Barr Decl., ¶6.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BEACHSIDE LAND AND DEVELOPMENT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS JAMES WILLIAM FENSKE, ET AL.

He states that Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the 19th affirmative defense because the trial date is set for June 14, 2021, Plaintiff will have sufficient time to conduct discovery, Fenske has not yet been deposed, and Fenske is amenable to a continuance if Plaintiff requires additional time to complete discovery. (Id., ¶11.) Based on the declaration of Mr.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MERRITT VS ADVANCED SEARCH PARTNERS

The Court declines Plaintiffs' request to enforce counsels' agreement regarding the timing of certain discovery, as set forth in an email between the attorneys. To the extent that the parties seek the Court's assistance enforcing agreements between them, those matters should be clearly articulated in joint stipulations and presented to the Court for execution as orders. The Court sanctions Defendants and their attorneys in the amount of $1860.00, payable jointly and severally.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

THE RICHARDSON 2001 TRUST

RE: PET'N FOR ORDERS INSTRUCTIONG ANDREA MENDELSSOHN TO FURNISH TERMS OF TRUST FILED ON 05/21/19 BY BRONWYN SCOTT PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances to report status, including discovery and mediation PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances Notes: 1. If granted, Court will set a review hearing to ensure deposit of funds into a blocked account. 2.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2021

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: 1ST ACCT & RPT OF TEMP TRUSTEE, PET’N FOR ITS SETTLEMENT, SUSPENDED TRUSTEE,

Appearances to report status, including discovery and mediation 2. Proposed Order Note: Mary Whitehouse’s Objections filed 12-21-2020. ANDREA MENDELSSOHN MATTHEW B TALBOT BRONWYN SCOTT KONSTANTINE A DEMIRIS BRONWYN SCOTT MICHAEL A NEHAM DR. ANDREA MENDELSSOHN MATTHEW B TALBOT MARY WHITEHOUSE ADRIANA QUINTERO THE RICHARDSON 2001 TRUST PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances to report status, including discovery and mediation 2.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2021

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A. VS RICHARD A MILLER, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s counsel Vanessa Thomas (“Thomas”) represents as follows: On or about July 23, 2020 and July 28, 2020 Plaintiff served the subject discovery on the Millers. (Thomas Decl., ¶2, Exh. A.) Plaintiff did not receive responses. (Id., ¶4.) On or about October 21, 2020, Thomas’ office sent letters to the Millers and requested that the Millers provide responses to the subject discovery on or before October 31, 2020. (Id., ¶5, Exh. B.) No responses thereto were received. (Id.) The motion is granted.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2021

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

MARY LIM VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Defendant therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions. Defendant’s motion is unopposed and granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified responses to form interrogatories, set one, without objections, within ten days. (CCP § 2030.290(a),(b).) Sanctions are mandatory. (CCP § 2030.290(c).) Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $2,100 for the motion. Given no opposition was filed, the request is unreasonable.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2021

KIMBERLY NICOLE NOVAK ET AL VS LAJWANTI CHOUDHURY

A court order for physical or mental examination must be based on a showing of “good cause” (CCP § 2032.320(a)): (1) relevancy to the subject matter; and (2) specific facts justifying discovery: i.e., allegations showing the need for the information sought and lack of means for obtaining it elsewhere. (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2021

FARHAD NAZARIAN VS JOHARI MOHSEN, ET AL.

On 11/3/20, the parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference; however, the matter was not resolved. American Pacific now moves to compel further responses to the form interrogatories and RPDs. Form Interrogatories American Pacific moves to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one, Nos. 6.4, 6.5, 6.7, 8.8. 9.1, 10.1, and 20.8.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2021

DANIEL GLENN ABRAMS VS CAROLE LIEBERMAN, ET AL.

.: 19SMCV01935 Complaint Filed: 11-1-19 Hearing Date: 1-28-21 Discovery C/O: None Calendar No.: 3 Discover Motion C/O: None POS: OK Trial Date: None SUBJECT: MOTION FOR ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES MOVING PARTY: Defendant Hamrick and Evans, LLP RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Daniel Glenn Abrams TENTATIVE RULING Defendant Hamrick and Evans, LLP’s Motion for Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BIANCA ENRIQUEZ VS PROVIDENCE HOLY CROSS MEDICAL CENTER ET A

In its 7/17/2020 Ruling, this Court sanctioned Plaintiff’s counsel for his misuse of the discovery process, deemed Defendant’s propounded RFAs admitted, and ordered Plaintiff to serve verified discovery responses. To date, Defendant has still not received code-compliant verified responses from Plaintiff. Plaintiff provides no adequate explanation as to why this is. Accordingly, there are no new facts or law which would lead this Court to reconsider its 7/17/2020 ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JESSI LEE LOPEZ VS ROBERT DE LA CRUZ ET AL

ABC argues Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by allowing discovery to remain open, as ABC does not seek to relitigate issues or complete duplicative discovery. In reply, Plaintiff contends he will be prejudiced by allowing discovery to remain open, whereas defendants will not. However, the prejudice Plaintiff complains of is the normal time and cost associated with discovery in a civil action.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2021

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.