Motion Types Legal Issues

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

Most Useful Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (CCP § 2030.300) Examples

Recent Examples of Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (CCP § 2030.300)

1-25 of 500 results

CLAIRE LEVINE VS SYLVESTER STEWART, ET AL.

...Defendant Allan Law Group, P.C. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses is DENIED. Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: Although the Court is denying Plaintiff’s motion for the reasons stated below, the Court believes that Defense counsel is playing games by its blanket objections to relevant discovery and by not providing answers to legitimate interrogatories. The C...

...for bringing a motion to compel initial discovery responses, and the moving party need only show that the discovery was properly propounded and a timely response was not served. (See Code Civ. Proc., § § 2030.290, 2031.300; see also Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 410-411; Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.) B....

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

CARRIEN QIAN HE, AN INDIVIDUAL VS JAY MIN CHEN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

...such. HEARING DATE: Friday, February 21, 2020 NOTICE: OK RE: He v. Chen, et al. (19PSCV00181) ______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff’s MOTIONS (1) TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; (2) TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE; (3) FOR RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM. R...

...Standard Discovery motions to compel further responses must be served within 45 days after service of the responses in question (extended if served by mail, overnight delivery, or fax). (Code Civ. Proc. § § 2030.300, 2031.310, 2033.290, 1013.) Otherwise, the demanding party waives the right to compel any further responses. (Id., § § 2030.300, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (c), 2033.290, subd. (c), 2016.050; ...

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

ARSHA CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CEDARWOOD CAPITAL PARTNERS LA CIENGA, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

...foreclosure of mechanic’s lien against Defendant Cedarwood Capital Partners La Cienega, LLC (“Defendant”) on January 15, 2019. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Motion to Compel Deposition on January 27, 2020. Defendant filed an opposition to the Motion to Compel Responses on February 5, 2020. Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests Improper Combination of Multiple...

... Motions Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses attempts to combine multiple requests for relief into a single motion. The Motion moves for an order compelling Defendant to furnish responses to three separate discovery requests: (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One; (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One; and (3) Requests for Production, Set One. It also moves for an order deeming the Request for Admission, Set One, admi...

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

LESLIE BLAKENEY VS SERGIO GARCIA

...record for their abuse of the discovery process. LEGAL STANDARD If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the movin...

...the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney a...

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

CHARLES KUTA V. COLORTOKENS, INC.

...answer alleging various defenses and a cross-complaint alleging that Kuta failed to pay back a loan that was due when Kuta separated from employment with ColorTokens. Defendant ColorTokens served several discovery requests on Kuta and has filed the instant motion to compel further discovery responses. The requested responses are targeted at discovering information regarding Linkaj, a competing company ColorToke...

...alleges Kuta and several of his coworkers created while they were still employed with ColorTokens. Kuta opposes the motion to compel. ColorTokens’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses ColorTokens moves to compel several items relating to Kuta’s involvement with Linkaj, a company that would compete with ColorTokens and that ColorTokens believed Kuta and other ColorTokens coworkers formed while they were employ...

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

VERNON ALEXANDER ROSADO, ET AL. VS LQK CORPORATION

...INTERROGATORIES, AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION (CCP § § 2030.290; 2031.300) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant LQK Corporation’s nine Motions to Compel Discovery are GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Defendant’s discovery requests within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order. Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions are also GRANTED in the reduced amount of ...

...(a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § § 2024.020, subd. (a), 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Code Civ...

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2020

LONNIE FRANKLIN VS JOSE MAURO RAMIREZ, ET AL.

Motion to Compel Deposition Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed. BACKGROUND On November 1, 2018, Plaintiff Lonnie Franklin (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint ...

...Vilma Del Carmen Ramirez and Defendant/Cross-Defendant Jose Mauro Ramirez seeking indemnity, apportionment, and declaratory relief. On January 23, 2020, Defendant Jose Mauro Ramirez filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (a). Trial is set for April 30, 2020. PARTY’S REQUESTS Defendant Jose Mauro Ramirez (“Moving Defe...

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2020

JARVONA RICHARDSON VS FAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATES MEDICAL GRO

...admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery proce...

...sanction unjust.” 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.) Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject...

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2020

MELANIE BASS VS. BABAK BOBBY SAADIAN

...trial is DENIED. Defendants seek a continuance on the sole ground that Defendants desire to file a motion for summary judgment ("MSJ") and need additional time to provide the required notice for such a motion. Plaintiff Melanie Bass ("Plaintiff") opposes the motion. "To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) "Although ...

...evidence to support an MSJ in April 2019. (See Declaration of Miller, ¶ 2.) However, Defendants were unable to obtain complete responses until January 2, 2020, after bringing two successful motions to compel discovery. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-6.) As trial is scheduled for March 2, 2020, the last day for a hearing on an MSJ was January 31, 2020 and the deadline for personal service of the moving papers was November 15, 2019. A...

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2020

JOSE FLORES VS TONYA RAVEN

...PRODUCTION (CCP § § 2030.290; 2031.300; 2033.280) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Tonya Raven’s (1) Motion for Order that the Truth of Any Matters Specified in Requests for Admission be Deemed Admitted, (2) Motion to Compel Discovery Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, and (3) Motion to Compel Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories are GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve responses without objections ...

...(a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § § 2024.020, subd. (a), 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Code Civ...

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2020

KRISTA LYNN TAYLOR VS LISA HANKIN

SUBJECT: (3) Motions to Compel Discovery Moving Party: Plaintiffs Krista Lynn Taylor and Roderick Taylor Resp. Party: Defendant Lisa Hankin Plaintiffs’ three motions to compel initial discovery responses are DENIED as moot. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions against Defendant and her counsel is DENIED. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: I. All three memorandums and supporting declarations are substantially the s...

...Plaintiffs filed amendments to the FAC to substitute DOE defendants for Karazissis Brothers, Inc., Cassandra Karazissis, and Nick Karazissis. Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ three motions to compel discovery responses from Defendant to their second set of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for admissions. ANALYSIS: A. Relevant Law California Code of Civil Procedure requires a response fro...

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2020

KRISTA LYNN TAYLOR VS LISA HANKIN

SUBJECT: (3) Motions to Compel Discovery Moving Party: Plaintiffs Krista Lynn Taylor and Roderick Taylor Resp. Party: Defendant Lisa Hankin Plaintiffs’ three motions to compel initial discovery responses are DENIED as moot. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions against Defendant and her counsel is DENIED. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS: I. All three memorandums and supporting declarations are substantially the s...

...Plaintiffs filed amendments to the FAC to substitute DOE defendants for Karazissis Brothers, Inc., Cassandra Karazissis, and Nick Karazissis. Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ three motions to compel discovery responses from Defendant to their second set of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for admissions. ANALYSIS: A. Relevant Law California Code of Civil Procedure requires a response fro...

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2020

DE GUZMAN VS FRANI

Tentative Rulings on Four Motions to Compel Discovery DeGuzman v. Frani, Case No. 2018-59861 February 21, 2020, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture. This is a partition action apparently arising out of a long romance which ended in...

...January 2020, four discovery motions. ROA 63-67. She seeks the imposition of monetary sanctions. Plaintiff filed a "response" on January 21, 2020 in which he disputes the timing of his receipt of the discovery requests, claims an intervening hospitalization, and attaches responses (without objections) to three of the four discovery devices. ROA 68. Defendant filed reply. ROA 69-73. The court has reviewed th...

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2020

DE GUZMAN VS FRANI

Tentative Rulings on Four Motions to Compel Discovery DeGuzman v. Frani, Case No. 2018-59861 February 21, 2020, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture. This is a partition action apparently arising out of a long romance which ended in...

...January 2020, four discovery motions. ROA 63-67. She seeks the imposition of monetary sanctions. Plaintiff filed a "response" on January 21, 2020 in which he disputes the timing of his receipt of the discovery requests, claims an intervening hospitalization, and attaches responses (without objections) to three of the four discovery devices. ROA 68. Defendant filed reply. ROA 69-73. The court has reviewed th...

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2020

JOSE AGRIPINO LOPEZ VS NIRA KOCHER

...agripino lopez, Plaintiff, v. nira kocher, Defendant. Case No.: 18STCV08193 Hearing Date: February 18, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Department #32 will be dark for motions on February 14, 2020. Each party is ordered to email the Court’s clerk at [email protected] before 1:30 p.m. that day to inform the clerk whether you are submitting on the Court’s tentative or wh...

...filed one motion to compel responses to both the FROG and SROG. The court therefore orders Plaintiff to pay an additional $60 in filing fees. (Gov. Code, § 70617, subd. (a).) Reaching the merits of the motions, before Plaintiff filed these motions, Defendant served unverified responses to Plaintiff’s discovery. “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 20...

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2020

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS BRIAN KENNETH HOPPE

...admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, subd. (c).) Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery proce...

...sanction unjust.” 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.) Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject...

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2020

MARIA DE LOS ANGELES CASILLAS VS ANA MARTIN MEDEROS

...martin mederos, Defendant. Case No.: 19STCV20077 Hearing Date: February 18, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to compel discovery responses Defendant Ana Martin Mederos (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Maria De Los Angeles Casillas (“Plaintiff”) to Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”). In its order of January 13, 2020, the Court noted that the FROG were not attached to the Declarati...

...Plaintiff proper notice. Further, even if Defendant served the notice of errata on January 27, 2020, that would not be sufficient notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) Therefore, Defendant’s motion to compel is denied without prejudice. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court. DATED: February 18, 2020 ___________________________ Stephen I. Goorvitch Judge of the Superior Co...

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2020

FE PALOMIQUE, AN INDIVIDUAL VS. WILSON GARDEN HOMEOWNERS

...Set One, Admitted CHRONOLOGY Date Discovery served: October 4, 2019 Extensions of time to respond until: January 3, 2020, without objection (Ex. D) Date Responses served: NO RESPONSES SERVED Date Motion served: January 20, 2020 Timely OPPOSITION: No opposition. ANALYSIS: Interrogatories and Documents Under CCP § 2030.290, “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely r...

...unjust.” CCP § 2023.030(a). Under CRC Rule 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 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.” The burden is on the party subject to sanctions to show ...

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

JOSE AGRIPINO LOPEZ VS NIRA KOCHER

...agripino lopez, Plaintiff, v. nira kocher, Defendant. Case No.: 18STCV08193 Hearing Date: February 14, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Department #32 will be dark for motions on February 14, 2020. Each party is ordered to email the Court’s clerk at [email protected] before 1:30 p.m. that day to inform the clerk whether you are submitting on the Court’s tentative or wh...

...filed one motion to compel responses to both the FROG and SROG. The court therefore orders Plaintiff to pay an additional $60 in filing fees. (Gov. Code, § 70617, subd. (a).) Reaching the merits of the motions, before Plaintiff filed these motions, Defendant served unverified responses to Plaintiff’s discovery. “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Superior Court (1988) 20...

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

NASSAR ZAIDEN V. LA MARIPOSA CARE AND REHAB CENTER

Motion to Compel to Further Response TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to their requests for production of documents, set one, is denied. Although Plaintiff filed a supplemental meet and confer declaration on January 31, 2020 indicating that the parties had failed to inf...

...that are at issue.”].) This court expressly ordered Plaintiff to file and serve a supplemental separate statement if the parties failed to fully resolve the dispute. The court may deny a motion to compel discovery for a party’s failure to comply with the requirements for a separate statement. (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.) No monetary sanctions are awarded. Upon considering the totality o...

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

COOLEY VS. CITY OF RICHMOND

HEARING ON MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY FILED BY TERESA COOLEY * TENTATIVE RULING: * The motion to compel discovery responses is granted. Defendant must serve responses to defendant’s second set of form interrogatories (served on or about September 24, 2019), without objections and with verifications, within 30 days following service of the Order After Hearing hereon...

...the Order After Hearing hereon. Defendant’s opposition says it will serve responses “shortly”, but the Court has no verification that that has occurred; and in any event it is readily apparent that this motion was necessary to induce defendant’s compliance.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

MANUEL MARTINEZ VS MICHAEL DOKUNMU

...record for their abuse of the discovery process. LEGAL STANDARD If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the movin...

...the documents demanded. There is no deadline for a motion to compel responses. Likewise, for failure to respond, the moving party need not attempt to resolve the matter outside court before filing the motion. Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subd. (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney a...

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

GMP ASSOCIATES, INC. VS LJO PROPERTIES, LLC

...ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT GMP ASSOCIATES, INC., etc., Plaintiff, vs. LJO PROPERTIES LLC, etc., et al., Defendants. AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION CASE NO.: 18STCV06568 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST NATHAN FORD Date: February 13, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 FSC: April 21, 2020 MOVING PARTY: Defendant and Cross-Complainant LJO Properties LLC (“LJO”) ...

...connection with a partial remodel of existing interior office spaces. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging a sole cause of action for foreclosure of mechanic’s lien. LJO filed a motion that the Court: (1) compel Cross-Defendant Nathan Ford (“Ford”) to comply with LJO’s first set of form interrogatories and second set of form interrogatories within seven days by serving answers to those interrogatories without...

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

TYBRITANY JONES THOMAS ET AL VS CITY OF SANTA MONICA ET AL

...monica, et al., Defendants. Case No.: BC691476 (consolidated with BC720243) Hearing Date: February 13, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Department #32 will be dark for motions on February 13, 2020. Each party is ordered to email the Court’s clerk at [email protected] before 1:30 p.m. that day to inform the clerk whether you are submitting on the Court’s tentative or wh...

...Defendant filed one motion to compel responses to both the FROG and SROG. The court therefore orders Defendant to pay an additional $60 in filing fees. (Gov. Code, § 70617, subd. (a).) Defendant served the discovery at issue on Plaintiff by mail on November 4, 2019. Plaintiff’s responses were thus due no later than December 9, 2019. As of the filing date of these motions, Defendant has not received responses from...

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

MIGUEL CARNERO VS GERMAN GOMEZ, ET AL.

...carnero, Plaintiff, v. german gomez, et al., Defendants. Case No.: 19STCV04461 Hearing Date: February 13, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motionS to compel discovery responses Department #32 will be dark for motions on February 13, 2020. Each party is ordered to email the Court’s clerk at [email protected] before 1:30 p.m. that day to inform the clerk whether you are submitting on the Court’s tentative or wh...

...Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”); and (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”). In opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel represents that Plaintiff has served verified responses, without objections. The motions are therefore moot except as to sanctions. Defendants request sanctions against Plaintiff. From the evidence before the Court, it appears that the failure to respond was primarily the result of Plai...

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 20     last » 

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