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

CATHAY BANK VS ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION

Plaintiffs Cathay Bank and Robb Evans & Associates LLC (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) move for leave to conduct discovery into the financial condition of Defendant Ace and Defendant JMI (collectively, the “Defendants”) pursuant to Civil Code section 3295(c): No pretrial discovery by the plaintiff shall be permitted with respect to the evidence referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (a) unless the court enters an order permitting such discovery pursuant to this subdivision.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

MANUEL ALEJANDRE VS CAL-VILLA ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030(d) provides: “The court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders: (1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process. (2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

ANGELA WATSON VS GILBERT A. CABOT

However, unsupported attorney’s fee allegations need not be stricken pursuant to a motion to strike, since later discovery may reveal a basis for their recovery. (Camenisch v. Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1689, 1699.) Additionally, pursuant to Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ARMEN G KOJIKIAN ET AL VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC

Counsel represents that the parties engaged in investigation and discovery in this matter.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

RE: PET’N TO DECLARE THE 2007 RESTATEMENT OF TRUST & 2019 INSTRUCTIONS FILED ON 05/26/20 BY RHONDA BRINK

GERARD SMITS MATTHEW B TALBOT LOUIS C SMITS PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need appearances D'AYONA N JEROME JON CHRISTOPHER WEIR DON JEROME LAURA M HEARNE NAUSTACHIA GREEN CAROLYN D CAIN SHAWNA CARITA CARNATION FILED ON 01/16/20 BY JOHN F KLEIN PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE -- See also Line # 21 -- Need appearances to report status, including 9-22-2020 order to meet and confer, and discovery.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

CENTURY GROUP INTERNATIONAL INC VS. ANNA COUMANS

Both counsel were informed of the above on August 28, 2020, with Plaintiff's first ex parte request regarding the discovery dates. See also Ventura Superior Court Civil Reopening Plan (Adopted June 9, 2020). Sanctions request by Defendant is denied. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

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 2. Proposed Order FILED ON 06/19/19 BY YVETTE DEROUEN PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Need: 1.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

RE: PET’N ON FIRST AND FINAL REPORT OF ADMINISTRATOR

GOINS Need appearances to report status, including 7-16-2020 order to meet and confer and discovery. Notes: 1. Per 7-16-2020 minute order, court ordered discovery completed by 10-1-2020. 2. Court intends to set this matter for trial. 3. Discovery motion filed by Diana Bundrum 8-7-2020 is set for 11-24-2020.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Judge

    George

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

ARMANDO TORRES, ET AL. VS CARLOS A. TURCIOS DURAN

Discovery is ongoing and responding party reserves the right to amend this response; (d) Unknown. Discovery is ongoing and responding party reserves the right to amend this response.” Plaintiffs argue there is good cause to compel further responses because each discovery request is relevant to this matter, but the responses were deficient. Plaintiffs argue the evidence is needed to carry their burden of proof at trial.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

SONIA LAJAS VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant’s attempt to limit Plaintiff’s discovery to her substantive claims contravenes the Discovery Code as well as case law and is untenable as a matter of basic logic.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

ADAM SEVIM V. MARISSA HUDSON, ET AL.

On March 6, 2020, attorney Tony Boyd emailed Plaintiff’s counsel indicating he would be handling the discovery on Attorney Sullivan’s behalf. He acknowledged Attorney Bailey’s patience regarding the discovery responses and provided an explanation for the delay. The letter did not provide a date by which the responses would be served, but indicated they would need to await Marissa’s discharge from the hospital. Attorney Boyd also indicated he would be amendable to a discovery conference.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

KATHERINE BIGELOW VS WESTERN ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC

“Generally, a deponent seeking a protective order will be required to show that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness involved in… [the discovery procedure] clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Emerson Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1110.) Plaintiff served her first set discovery requests, including a Request for Production of Documents, on Defendant on October 1, 2019. (Decl. of Karp ¶2, Exh. 1.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

STEPHEN ALAN GREEN VS AXIALL CORPORATION, ET AL

Discovery Deadlines and Timing of Non-Expert & Expert Discovery B. Written Discovery The parties are not to engage in duplicative or repetitive discovery. The entry of this Case Management Order will not limit or bar discovery served prior to its effective date.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

THE KONIGSBERG COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC.,A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

.: 19SMCV01281 Complaint Filed: 7-18-19 Hearing Date: 9-29-20 Discovery C/O: None Calendar No.: 3 Discover Motion C/O: None POS: OK Trial Date: None SUBJECT: DEMURRER WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE MOVING PARTY: Defendants Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. and New Line Productions, Inc. RESP.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GREENFIELD ORGANIX, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS LITTLE COTTAGE CAREGIVERS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

.: 19SMCV02176 Complaint Filed: 12-19-19 Hearing Date: 9-29-20 Discovery C/O: None Calendar No.: 6 Discover Motion C/O: None POS: OK Trial Date: None SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ATTACHMENT MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Greenfield Organix d/b/a Loudpack RESP.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ROSS BURKE VS SLAVISH SHAMOEIL, ET AL.

relieved as counsel for Shamoeil, Lee declares that: (1) Shamoeil gave his son authorization to speak to his office; (2) on or about August 18, 2020, Shamoeil’s son called his office and staff called LAPD due to fear of safety for everyone in the office; (3) Shamoeil’s son also contacted opposing counsel to enter into negotiations without his office’s permission or advance notice; (4) Shamoeil has done nothing in response to his son’s actions; (5) Shamoeil has failed to cooperate with counsel to respond to discovery

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

BASIRU ADEBISI VS ADRIAN CARTER

.: 19STCV37481 Hearing Date: September 29, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES Defendant Adrian Carter (“Defendant”) moves to compel further responses to his Form Interrogatories (“FROG”) and Requests for Production of Documents (“RPD”) served on Plaintiff Basiru Adebisi (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. The Court rules as follows: FROG #1.1 – Granted. FROG #6.7 – Granted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

LYSA COOPER, AN INDIVIDUAL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A PUBLIC ENTITY

Plaintiff argued Defendant was attempting to use the COVID-19 pandemic as a tactic to delay discovery. In opposition, Defendant argues the motion should be denied because Defendant has worked with Plaintiff to provide mutually agreeable dates, while Plaintiff did not meet and confer in good faith.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TANIA PULLIAM VS HNL AUTOMOTIVE INC ET AL

TDAF further objects specifically to the $1,880 that TDAF paid to Plaintiff to settle the discovery dispute between the parties. TDAF argues that it would be double recovery to allow Plaintiff to recover these costs. Plaintiff argues that the $1,880 payment did not pay for attorney fees, costs, or expenses incurred in drafting the motions, rather the payment was simply to settle the outstanding issue of sanctions against TDAF. The Court disagrees with Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

CAROLE SIEGEL VS ROBERT HERMAN VOGEL

A discovery referee may be appointed when “the court in any pending action determines that it is necessary for the court to appoint a referee to hear and determine any and all discovery motions and disputes relevant to discovery in the action and to report findings and make a recommendation thereon.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 639(a)(5).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

CINAMOM'S GOODIES, INC. VS E & Z FOOD SERVICES, 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

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JOY SLAGEL VS LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

Further, his discovery responses place at direct issue the question of whether he paid taxes as partners with any of Govind’s businesses, and obtaining such information from Prashant’s accountant can corroborate or contradict Cross-Complainants’ written responses.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

LYSA COOPER, AN INDIVIDUAL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A PUBLIC ENTITY

Plaintiff argued Defendant was attempting to use the COVID-19 pandemic as a tactic to delay discovery. In opposition, Defendant argues the motion should be denied because Defendant has worked with Plaintiff to provide mutually agreeable dates, while Plaintiff did not meet and confer in good faith.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JANE DOE VS LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN KANANI, ET AL.

.: 19SMCV01991 Complaint Filed: 11-13-19 Hearing Date: 9-29-20 Discovery C/O: None Calendar No.: 11 Discover Motion C/O: None POS: OK Trial Date: None SUBJECT: MOTION TO STAY ACTION MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Jane Doe RESP. PARTY: Defendants Law Offices of Benjamin Kanani and Benjamin Kanani TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Action is GRANTED pending resolution of the appeals in Case Nos. 17SMRO00308 and 17SMRO00368.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2020

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.