What is a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (CCP § 2030.300)?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (CCP § 2030.300)

Recent Rulings on Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (CCP § 2030.300)

HSIEH V. LIN

Under Filing and Motions Fees: defendants may recover: a) Ex-Parte Application to Specially Set MSC $60 and court reporter fee $30; b) Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial Date $60; c)Motion to Compel Discovery Responses $60 and court reporter fee $30; d) Motion to Consolidate $60; e) Motion for Sanctions $60 and court reporter fees $30; f) Ex Parte Application re Motion for OSC re Sanctions $60; f) Demurrer $900 and court reporter fee $30; g) Motion for Sanctions $60; Under Deposition Costs: defendants may

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

JOSHUA JOHNSON ET AL VS JOSE LIMA ESPINA

.: BC713801 Hearing Date: September 23, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Defendant Jose Lima Espina (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiffs Joshua Johnson, Faith Johnson, and Brihtsy Atlan (“Plaintiffs”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”); and (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”). Defendant served the written discovery on Plaintiffs on September 27, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2020

BRINA WASHINGTON, ET AL. VS VANETTA N MOSBY, ET AL.

Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a) states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” Defendants request sanctions against plaintiff in the total amount of $2,520 for both motions.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DELARA NASSERI VS CAROLINE ZEYTUNTSYAN

.: 19STCV35171 Hearing Date: September 22, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Defendant Caroline Zeytuntsyan (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Delara Nasseri (“Plaintiff”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”); and (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”). Defendant served the written discovery on Plaintiff via email on March 27, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

KEVIN HUDDLESTON, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS BALUBHAI PATEL, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 407; CRC 3.1348(a) (“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though … the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”).) In opposition, Defendants assert imposition of sanctions would be unjust due to Defendants’ counsel’s extreme backlog due to his and his family’s medical issues. (Opposition, pg. 8.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MONTIEL V. NEWPORT FOOT AND ANKLE CENTER, INC.

Plaintiff’s (Yolanda Montiel) Motion to Reconsider/Revoke/Amend and/or Modify the Court’s February 4, 2020 Order Ruling re: Motions to Compel Discovery (Motion), filed on 2-14-20 under ROA No. 337, is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

KIM VS SK CUISINE CORPORATION

Tentative Ruling on Motion to Compel Discovery Kim v. SK Cuisine, Case No. 2018-53297 Sept. 25, 2020, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture. This case arises out of the parties' efforts to open and operate a sushi restaurant, Full Moon, in the Gaslamp Quarter of San Diego. The venture evidently suffered from extensive construction delays and cost overruns.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

RENA SHULTZ VS THE KROGER COMPANY DBA RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

.: 20STCV05147 Hearing Date: September 21, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Defendant Alpha Beta Company (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Rena Shultz (“Plaintiff”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”); and (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”). Defendant served the written discovery on Plaintiff on March 3, 202, by mail. Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by April 7, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KIMBERLY BOUSSARD VS CHARLES SHORTER

Alternatively, if Defendant can produce evidence that they properly gave notice of the subject hearing date as ordered, the court rules as follows: Between 7/22/20 to 7/24/20, Defendant filed the following nine motions to compel discovery responses: motions to compel (1) form interrogatories, (2) special interrogatories and (3) request for production of documents against Plaintiff Lucia Ruvalcaba; motions to compel (4) form interrogatories, (5) special interrogatories and (6) request for production of documents

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

ABRAHAMS VS. HAMPTON

HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT FILED BY HARRY ABRAHAMS * TENTATIVE RULING: * Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses from defendant Hampton, and to deem matters admitted, is granted in part. The motion is denied insofar as it requests that matters be deemed admitted. Hampton has served responses to the requests for admission before the hearing date of the motion. As for the other discovery, however, the motion is granted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

FRANCISCO ROCHA VS ERIC CHAPMAN ET AL

Rules of Court, Rule 3.1348(a) states: “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” Defendant Ray Consulting requests sanctions against defendant Lemoli and/or its attorneys in the total amount $1,605. The court denies the request for sanctions.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SORMEH ATTARZADEH VS NOAH HENRY GIBSON

.: BC720805 Hearing Date: September 18, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Defendant Noah Henry Gibson (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Sormeh Attarzadeh (“Plaintiff”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”), and (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”). Defendant served the discovery at issue on Plaintiff by mail on June 28, 2019. Plaintiff’s responses were thus due by August 2, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

LAURA LUBINSKY VS MYLES JOSEF ZAKHEIM, O.D., ET AL.

.: 19STCV29065 Hearing Date: September 18, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Defendants Myles Josef Zakheim, O.D. and Dr. Myles Josef Zakheim, O.D., Optometric Corporation (“Defendants”) move to compel responses from Plaintiff Laura Lubinsky (“Plaintiff”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”); and (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”).

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

CICINDELAE, INC., ET AL. VS SHERRIE CARR, ET AL.

Motion to Compel Discovery Response, For An Order Deeming Truth of Facts Admitted and For Imposition of Sanctions Against Sherrie Carr: The Motion Reservation was for one motion: a single motion to compel responses to discovery.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JESSIKA REYES CASTILLO VS MICHAEL JEDLICK, ET AL.

.: 20STCV02195 Hearing Date: September 18, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Defendant Michael Jedlick (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Jessika Reyes Castillo (“Plaintiff”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”); and (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”). Defendant also moves to deem the Requests for Admission, Set One (“RFAs”) to have been admitted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

MARIA DEL CARMEN FUENTES VS BGN PROPERTIES, LTD, ET AL.

.: 19STCV29851 Hearing Date: September 17, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Defendant BGN Properties Covina Palms LP (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Maria Del Carmen Fuentes (“Plaintiff”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”); and (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”).

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOHN CLARK VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

.: 19STCV18899 Hearing Date: September 17, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Plaintiff John Clark (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel responses from Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Sergio Silva (“Defendants”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set Two and Set Three (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”); (3) Special Interrogatories, Set Two (“SROG”); and (4) Requests for Admissions, sets one and two (“RFA”).

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

ERICA KIM, ET AL. VS JESUS LOPEZ

.: 19STCV20265 Hearing Date: September 17, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Defendant Jesus Lopez (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiffs Erica Kim and Young Min Kim (“Plaintiff”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”); and (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”). Defendant served the written discovery on Plaintiffs on December 23, 2019, and granted extensions to April 15, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

CMG WORLDWIDE, INC. VS DREAMS FULFILLED, LLC

ORDER RE: THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT/THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION The motion by Third-Party Defendants Rachel Robinson and the Estate of Jackie Robinson (“Cross-Defendants”) to compel discovery responses from Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Dreams Fulfilled, LLC (“Dreams Fulfilled”) will be continued to a new date as set forth below. NO HEARING ON THE MOTION WILL TAKE PLACE ON SEPTEMBER 17, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

RICKY HINTON VS NORMA PROCTOR

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION (CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Norma Proctor’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF RICKY HINTON IS TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, WITHIN 20 DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RICKY HINTON VS NORMA PROCTOR

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION (CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Ricky Hinton’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses is GRANTED. DEFENDANT NORMA PROCTOR IS TO SERVE VERIFIED RESPONSES WITHOUT OBJECTION TO THE SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, WITHIN 20 DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JESSIE SOLIS SILVA, ET AL. VS MERRILY GOODE SAXON, ET AL.

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES Date of Hearing: September 16, 2020 Trial Date: None set. Department: W Case No.: 19VECV00349 Moving Party: Plaintiffs Jessie Solis Silva and Jorge Silva Responding Party: Defendant Merrily Goode Saxon BACKGROUND Plaintiffs allege that they were employed by defendant as resident managers of an apartment complex defendants owned.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FAIRLIE V LYNG

RAPHAELY’S (UNOPPOSED) MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES Raphaely’s unopposed motion to compel responses to Specially Prepared Interrogatorie re Enforcement of Judgment, Set No. One, and Demand for Inspection of Documents and Thing Re Enforcement of Judgment, Set No. One is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to serve code compliant responses without objections within fiftee days of the date of this order.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

SUMER CAMPA VS SLV INVESTMENT COMPANY LLC ET AL

Attachment 14A – February 27, 2019 One Legal Filing Fee for Motion to Compel Discovery, which was brought by Sandra Valentine ($13.64) Defendant Fortune concedes, however, that $13.64 should be stricken under Attachment 14A. Attachment 16A – April 12, 2019 Motion to Compel Parking and Mileage Fee(s) for a Motion to Compel, which was brought by Sandra Valentine ($61.76) Defendant Fortune concedes, however, that $61.76 should be stricken under Attachment 16A.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

PACIFIC WESTERN BANK VS EAGLE SOLUTIONS INC

Tentative Rulings on Three Motions to Compel Discovery Pacific Western Bank v. Eagle Solutions, Case No. 2019-55325 Sept. 18, 2020, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture. In this case, the Bank seeks to collect on two unsecured loans made to defendant Eagle and guaranteed by defendant Singh. The amount in controversy is $110,000 plus interest and other charges. The complaint was filed in October 2019, and defendant Singh answered in propria persona in January 2020. ROA 10.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 171     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.