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)

MARQUIS PATTERSON VS MOISES CUELLAR, ET AL.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (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files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

CHRISTINA GARCIA VS UPTOWN LOUNGE INC

“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files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1348(a).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

KENNETH MOORE VS LA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

(2) Motion to Compel Discovery Plaintiff’s Reply, labeled an opposition and filed on April 13, 2020, appears to assert Plaintiff’s right to certain discovery. To the extent that Plaintiff intends to compel discovery, the proper procedure is to file a motion to compel discovery. (See CCP §§ 2025.450, 2025.480.) II.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GARCIA V. ACTERBERG

Defense Counsel declares the following in support of the motion: since the court’s hearing on February 14, 2020 granting the motion to compel discovery, counsel has not heard anything from plaintiff; plaintiff has not provided any responses to discovery and apparently made no attempt to comply; and defendant has incurred $417.50 in attorney fees, a filing fee, and a courtcall fee.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

ELLIS MCGEHEE VS CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, ET AL.

Protective order As for plaintiff’s request for a protective order because of “Defendants’ frivolous motions to compel discovery responses,” defendants’ motions were taken off calendar when the case was transferred and have not been rescheduled. The court encourages the parties to engage in an IDC. In any event, if the motions are scheduled, the court will address any issues in the context of the motions themselves.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

ANURAG GUPTA VS SHARISE MARIE BARBOSA

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “[t]he 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.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

NATHANIEL WHITE JR ET AL VS WENDY TAYLOR

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.”).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JEFFREY JOHNSON VS OUTFRONT MEDIA

.: 19STCV12073 Hearing Date: July 10, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Defendant Outfront Media, LLC (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Jeffrey Johnson (“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 also moves to deem admitted matters specified in Requests for Admissions, Set One (“RFAs).

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KIRK PORTER VS ALLAIRE RUEL JOHNSON

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “[t]he 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.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA VS. EQUALTOX, INC., APC

Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893 (The trial court has discretion to deny a motion to compel discovery if a party fails to comply with the rule governing format of discovery motions.) Plaintiffs showed good cause for the requests. Wu Decl., Exhibit A, Page 4. As noted above, Plaintiffs contend Dr. Scott and Scott Inc. failed to serve signed verifications for their supplemental responses. Dr. Scott and Scott Inc. have not shown signed verifications were served.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

ALLEN V. EPIC VICTORY

., and Christiane Forrester’s (“Forrester” individually and “Defendants” together) 1) Motion to Compel Deposition of Corby Lee, LMFT; and 2) Motion to Compel Discovery of Records from Inward Journeys Counseling Center (“Motions” together), is continued to 07/30/20. There are multiple service issues with the pleadings relating to these motions. First, plaintiffs Deborah Allen and Dena Fargo (“Plaintiffs” together) failed to file any proofs of service with their oppositions to the Motions.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

MELISSA THOMAS VS ROBERT THOMAS

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES ARE GRANTED. Background On August 5, 2019, Plaintiff Melissa Thomas filed the instant action against Defendant Robert Thomas and Does 1 through 10. The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Electronic Eavesdropping and Records (P.C. 632); Public Disclosure of Private Facts; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (N.I.E.D.); and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (I.I.E.D.).

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ALLEN V. EPIC VICTORY

., and Christiane Forrester’s (“Forrester” individually and “Defendants” together) 1) Motion to Compel Deposition of Corby Lee, LMFT; and 2) Motion to Compel Discovery of Records from Inward Journeys Counseling Center (“Motions” together), is continued to 07/30/20. There are multiple service issues with the pleadings relating to these motions. First, plaintiffs Deborah Allen and Dena Fargo (“Plaintiffs” together) failed to file any proofs of service with their oppositions to the Motions.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

JANE MI VS HOSSEIN ZAHED ZADEH

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “[t]he 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.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

ABEL VALDEZ VS AUGUSTO ROJAS, ET AL.

.: 19SMCV00987 Hearing Date: July 8, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Defendants Augusto Rojas, M.D., Augusto Rojas, M.D., Inc., and Venice Beach Surgical Center (“Defendants”) move to compel responses from Plaintiff Abel Valdez (“Plaintiff”) to Form Interrogatories, Set Two (“FROG”). Defendants also move to deem admitted the matters specified in Requests for Admissions, Set One (“RFAs”).

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

DG PREMIUM BRANDS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ONESTOP (ASSIGNMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS), LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

DISCUSSION: Motion to Compel Three Sets of Discovery and Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted Multiple Motions Improperly Combined Plaintiff’s reservation was for one motion: a single motion to compel discovery, to wit, initial responses, not “further” responses.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CITY OF SOUTH GATE, A PUBLIC ENTITY VS APRIL MANCINI, ET AL.

“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.” (C.R.C. Rule 3.1348(a).) Defendant ADHOOT does not oppose the instant motions to compel.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARIA GARCIA MARTINEZ VS 800 DEGREES, LLC, ET AL.

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY ARE GRANTED. Background On December 5, 2018, Plaintiff Maria Garcia Martinez filed the instant action against Defendants 800 Degrees, LLC; 800 Degrees Westwood, LLC; 800 Degree; Anthony H. Carron; and Does 1 through 100. The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Failure to Pay Minimum Wage (Cal. Lab. Code § 1197); Failure to Compensate for All Hours Worked (Cal. Lab. Code § 1198); Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation (Cal. Lab.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FRIDA KORSHUNOVA VS 1116 MAPLE STREET, LLC

.: 19STCV07557 Hearing Date: July 8, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to compel discovery responses Defendant 1116 Maple Street, LLC (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Frida Korshunova (“Plaintiff”) to Special Interrogatories (“SROG”), Sets Three and Four. Defendant served SROG, Set Three, on Plaintiff by mail on January 21, 2020. Defendant served SROG, Set Four, on Plaintiff by mail on January 27, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC VS PLATINUM LUXURY MOTORS INC, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

However, a Motion to Compel Discovery is scheduled for hearing on the same day as the instant motion. To avoid potential prejudice to Defendant, the Court, on its own motion, CONTINUES Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery to Friday, August 7, 2020 at 3:00 p.m. Based on the foregoing, the motion to be relieved is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JOSE GUEVARA, ET AL. VS WALTER J RODE, ET AL.

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY ARE GRANTED. Background On August 21, 2019, the instant action was filed. On January 16, 2020, Plaintiffs Ana Peraza; Deisy Guevara; Victor Guevara; Robert Guevara; and Karen Guevara, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Ana Peraza filed the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants Walter J. Rode; W.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ASHLEY KING VS MIGUEL CASTRO

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “[t]he 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.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

PRISCILLA LEGASPI VS REYNA MORAZAN

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “[t]he 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.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

MARGARET KEYES VS LISA ZEDER, ET AL.

In Mills, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery because the separate statement did not set forth defendant’s full response to each discovery request; instead, it repeatedly grouped together several discovery requests and then stated “in relevant part” defendants’ response to the group as a whole. (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SEAN LUMPKIN VS JAMES BARROS

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, subdivision (a) states: “[t]he 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.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 161     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.