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 Rulings on 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

HAGOP TCHAKERIAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Second Cause of Action: Violation of Government Code section 12940 (Age Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, and Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation) “[T]he [Fair Employment and Housing Act] FEHA provides that no complaint for any violation of its provisions may be filed with the Department ‘after the expiration of one year from the date upon which the alleged unlawful practice or refusal to cooperate occurred,’ with an exception for delayed discovery” or for continuing violations.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KOUROSH IZADPANAHI VS MARIA ALMA YOLANDA IBARRA DABDOUB, ET AL.

Kim demurs to the complaint on the ground Plaintiff Kourosh Izadpanahi’s claims are time-barred by the applicable statutes of limitations even with application of the delayed discovery rule. Under the delayed discovery rule, “the accrual date of a cause of action is delayed until the plaintiff is aware of his or her injury and its cause.” (Brandon G. v. Gray (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 29, 35.) Here, Plaintiff alleges he was unaware of his injuries until 2019, despite the sale of the property in June 2016.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

LA LIVE PROPERTIES, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS KA WAIKWAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Plaintiff maintains that “separation of the Underlying Claims from the Indemnification Claims will promote the efficient use of the Court’s resources by keeping unrelated and derivative issues, and different discovery and review standards separate.” (Id. at p. 4:5-6.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MATTER OF YVETTE DEROUEN FIGUEROA

RE: MTN TO QUASH DISCOVERY; FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER FILED ON 05/05/20 BY ANDRE DEROUEN PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1. Appearances FILED ON 05/04/20 BY ANDRE DEROUEN PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE See 16.B above

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

GRACE ALBA, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM, SYLVIA ALBA VS SPARKLETTS, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

The Protective Order is intended to permit without dispute the production of Confidential Documents, but is without prejudice to the right of any Party to apply to the Court for any further order that it deems appropriate or to object on any appropriate grounds to the discovery requests . . . 15. A Party shall not be obligated to challenge the propriety of a confidentiality designation at the time made, and a failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent challenge thereto.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

MELODY CHACKER VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, AN ARIZONA CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Legal Standard A party may be deemed a vexatious litigant upon a showing that the party repeatedly files unmeritorious papers, conducts unnecessary discovery or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay. (CCP § 391(b)(3).) Alternatively, the decision can be based upon the ground that the party repeatedly relitigates finally determined litigation. (CCP § 391(b)(2).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

ROMEO NATIVIDAD VS ABS FACILITY SERVICES

The court could deny the motion on that basis, but it would rather resolve the discovery dispute and move the case along. Audiology does not dispute having been served with the subpoena. Accordingly, the court orders that ABS Facility lodge the subpoena before the hearing of this matter. CONCLUSION The motion is GRANTED subject to the court’s review of the subpoena. Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MARQUIS PATTERSON VS MOISES CUELLAR, ET AL.

Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

NATALIE GAYEVA VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC, ET AL.

“A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of Cal., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Such demurrers “are disfavored, and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Insurance Agency, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 841, 848.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY INS. CO. V. SALVADOR VEGAS GUZMAN ET; AL.

Meet & confer re discovery issues and case (as ordered to occur prior to 7/14 CMC).

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

AUSTIN SKAGGS V. JENNIFER NGO

Counsel to discuss status of discovery, how to proceed.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

DENISE E. MORDEN V. CINDY ORTIZ-SANCHEZ, CENTRAL WEST PRODUCE, ET. AL.

Nature of Proceedings: Case Management Conference Motor vehicle incident of 6/5/19 (State Rte. 1 and Brown Rd near Guadalupe), Discovery schedule and ADR options to be discussed at CMC.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

OLGUIN V. CAL CENTRAL HARVESTING, INC., ET AL.

Further, on March 4, 2020, before the motion to strike was filed on March 10, 2020, both plaintiffs and defendants requested an informal discovery hearing, which was continued to June 16, 2020, following the court’s closure in wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. There are now pending a number of discovery motions, scheduled to be heard on July 28, 2020 (five as of this writing).

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

CASE NO. 19CV02228 – MARY MOTLEY ET. AL. V. SYSCO VENTURA, INC. (LEAD CASE OF CONSOLIDATED CASES)

Discussion of preparing Case Management Order re discovery schedule, pre-trial proceedings and possible global ADR approach to case(s).

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

JACK CASO-COLEBECK V. RYAN J. CUFF, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, DUNN SCHOOL ET. AL.

Status of post mediation/ expert discovery/ further mediation session? To be discussed.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

DELMY YOJANA CASTEJON VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Moving Party argues there is good cause to allow it to file a first amended answer to allege it is immune from liability pursuant to California Government Code section 850.4 because discovery has revealed Plaintiff slipped from a leaking fire hydrant. (Graven Decl., ¶ 5.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

FEDORA BLISS, LLC VS JOHN LABIB + ASSOCIATES, A BUSINESS ENTITY, FORM UNKNOWN

Defendant argues that “if those defenses succeed (which, again, appears likely based upon the plain language of the agreement, the speculative nature of the Plaintiffs claim/discovery responses and JLA's conduct), then the Court need not proceed through a long and expensive trial over an old and never used design of a yet to be constructed apartment building.” (Id. at p. 8:3-7.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JEAN NDJONGO VS HENRY M. WILLIS, ET AL.

“A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Khoury v. Maly’s of Cal., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Such demurrers “are disfavored, and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Mahan v. Charles W. Chan Insurance Agency, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 841, 848.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

CHAN WOO JANG VS YOUNG C OH, ET AL.

Also, if any payments were made toward the debt, that information can be clarified during discovery. Thus, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the elements for a breach of contract claim. Demurrer to this cause of action is OVERRULED. Fraud and Deceit (2nd Cause of Action) Intentional and negligent misrepresentation actions are subject to strict requirements of particularity in pleading. (Goldrich v. National Y Surgical Specialties, Inc. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 772, 782.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DANIEL KANG VS VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

Moreover, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the time and manner of discovery (FAC ¶ 8, 35) and the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence. (FAC ¶ 10-29.) Based on the foregoing, the demurrer to the sixth cause of action is OVERRULED on this ground.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

JERRI LEE JOHNSON VS HOLLYWOOD PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL

Sections 2030.300, subdivision (e), and 2031.310, subdivision (i), provide that if a party fails to obey a court order compelling further responses to discovery requests, that the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of terminating, evidentiary, and monetary sanctions. A party’s failure to respond to discovery and to comply with a judge’s orders compelling discovery provides ample grounds for imposing a terminating sanction. (See Jerry’s Shell v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

CHAN WOO JANG VS YOUNG C OH, ET AL.

As far as we know, Defendant may not even know of the existence of this outstanding discovery or this specific discovery motion. No sanctions are to be awarded, since the notice of motion did not clearly “identify” the person(s) against whom sanctions were sought. (CCP § 2023.040.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KRISTOPHER FAGAN VS JUSTIN HILL, ET AL.

Moreover, even if the pleading is somewhat vague, “ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.” (Ibid.) However, “a demurrer cannot rightfully be sustained to part of a cause of action or to a particular type of damage or remedy.” (Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1047.) B. Discussion 1.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

WESTERN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS DEANNA SNOW, ET AL.

Thus, while granting each of Petitioner’s motions as indicated above due to the lack of opposition, the Court will not award Petitioner any monetary sanctions whatsoever pursuant to its discovery motions because Petitioner did not comply with California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2023.040. Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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 gather your results.