Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (CCP § 2030.300) in California

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

California Code of Civil Procedure requires a response from the party to whom requests for production are propounded within 30 days after service of the requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260(a), 2031.260(a).)

How to Structure the Motion

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 of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(b), 2031.300(b), 2033.280 (a party who fails to serve a timely response to a request for admission); Leach v. Super. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906.) “Once [a party] ‘fail[ed] to serve a timely response,’ the trial court had authority to grant [opposing party's] motion to compel responses.” (Sinaiko Health. Couns., Inc. v. Pac. Health. Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405.)

By failing to respond to an inspection demand, the offending party waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(a).) “Unsworn responses are tantamount to no responses at all.” (Appleton v. Super. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.) Failure to timely respond waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a).) Thus, unless the party to whom the demand was directed obtains relief from waiver, he or she cannot raise objections to the documents demanded.

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires that any motion involving discovery requests must be accompanied by a separate statement that provides all information necessary for understanding each request that is at issue. (See also Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 892-893 (trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery as plaintiffs’ separate statement did not comply with the rules of court); Neary v. Regents of University of California (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1145 (trial court properly denied motions to compel discovery because of nonconforming separate statements).)

Note, in Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1588, the court held that, “[b]y simply hearing the motion to compel without first deciding whether discovery should be reopened for that purpose under all of the relevant circumstances, the trial court ‘transgresse[d] the confines of the applicable principles of law’... and thereby abused its discretion.” (citing, in part, City of Sac. v. Drew (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1287, 1297.) But the court allowed the late motion to compel if the moving party undertook some steps. (Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1586-1587 (“the fact that a party does not have a right to have a discovery motion heard after the discovery motion cutoff date does not mean the court has no power to hear it, or that the court errs in hearing it.”))

Response

A party may obtain relief from a waiver of objections to interrogatories and a request for production when the party subsequently serves responses and the failure to serve a timely response was the result of a mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(a), 2031.300(a).)

Meet and Confer

The demanding party shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under § 2016.040, or a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.450(b)(2), 2030.300(b), 2031.310(b).)

Statute of Limitations

The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served. All that need be shown in the moving papers is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. (Leach v. Super. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905-906.) Some of the rules are in tension with this holding. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310(c); § 2030.300(c).)

Monetary Sanctions

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction... against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(c), 2030.300(d), 2031.310(h); see also Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(c)(1).)

Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a), explains, “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 motion was filed.” (See also Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.030(a), 2033.280, 2030.290, and 2031.300.)

Sanctions include attorney's fees. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(a).)

Documents

1-10 of 10000 results

County

San Francisco County, CA

Filed Date

Jun 11, 2019

Type

CONTRACT/WARRANTY

County

San Joaquin County, CA

Filed Date

Jul 06, 2020

Type

Unlimited Civil PI/PD/WD (Other)

Judge Hon. Lee, Jayne Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Lee, Jayne
Case Filed

Apr 18, 2019

Case Status

Dismissed

County

San Bernardino County, CA

Filed Date

May 13, 2021

Type

Personal Injury Non-Motor Vehicle Unlimited

Judge Hon. Winston Keh Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Winston Keh
County

San Francisco County, CA

Filed Date

Nov 30, 2010

Type

PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED

Judge Hon. CHARLOTTE WOOLARD Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for CHARLOTTE WOOLARD
Case Filed

May 01, 2017

Case Status

All Proceedings Stayed

County

San Joaquin County, CA

Filed Date

Apr 09, 2018

Type

Unlimited Civil Other Employment

Judge

Guy Castillo, Erin

County

San Francisco County, CA

Filed Date

Jan 06, 2011

Type

CONTRACT/WARRANTY

Case Filed

Feb 25, 2013

Case Status

Appeal

County

Kern County, CA

Filed Date

Feb 06, 2018

Judge Hon. Lampe, David R. Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Lampe, David R.
Case Filed

Sep 07, 2018

Case Status

Judgment

County

Kern County, CA

Filed Date

Dec 04, 2018

Judge Hon. Clark, Thomas S. Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Clark, Thomas S.
Case Filed

Sep 07, 2018

Case Status

Judgment

County

Kern County, CA

Filed Date

Dec 04, 2018

Judge Hon. Clark, Thomas S. Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Clark, Thomas S.
Case Filed

May 01, 2017

Case Status

All Proceedings Stayed

County

San Joaquin County, CA

Filed Date

Apr 09, 2018

Type

Unlimited Civil Other Employment

Judge

Guy Castillo, Erin

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope