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)

MICHAEL LAWRENCE KLINE VS MICHAEL DIBACCO

As such, the motion to compel discovery responses is taken off-calendar in light of the stay. The Court sets an OSC re Status of Defendant’s Bankruptcy for March 4, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DANA MCCOY VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

.: 18STCV06165 Hearing Date: December 4, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to compel discovery responses NOTICE Judge Goorvitch was sworn-in as a Superior Court Judge on December 15, 2015. Prior to that time, Judge Goorvitch made the following campaign contributions to Michael N. Feuer: (1) $100 to Mr. Feuer’s 2008 campaign for the 42nd Assembly District on or about November 9, 2007; (2) $100 to Mr. Feuer’s 2010 campaign for the 42nd Assembly District on or about October 19, 2010; and (3) $100 to Mr.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

GLORIA E. JOHNSON VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

.: 19STCV26376 Hearing Date: December 3, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to compel discovery responses NOTICE Judge Goorvitch was sworn-in as a Superior Court Judge on December 15, 2015. Prior to that time, Judge Goorvitch made the following campaign contributions to Michael N. Feuer: (1) $100 to Mr. Feuer’s 2008 campaign for the 42nd Assembly District on or about November 9, 2007; (2) $100 to Mr. Feuer’s 2010 campaign for the 42nd Assembly District on or about October 19, 2010; and (3) $100 to Mr.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

CHELSEA GOTTFURCHT VS RST & ASSOC., ET AL.

.: 18STCV03275 Hearing Date: December 2, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to compel discovery responses Plaintiff Chelsea Gottfurcht (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel responses from Defendant RST & Assoc. (“Defendant”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RPD”); (2) Form Interrogatories, Set One (“FROG”); and (3) Special Interrogatories, Set One (“SROG”). As an initial matter, Defendant filed one motion to compel responses to three separate sets of discovery.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ARA INEZIAN VS COM TECH21/AEON, AN ENTITY OF UNKNOWN ORIGIN, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY ARE GRANTED. Background On February 5, 2020, Plaintiff Ara Inezian dba ARA Certified Backflow Development filed the instant action against Defendants ComTech 21, LLC (erroneously sued as Com Tech21/AEON); AEON, Inc. (erroneously sued as Com Tech21/AEON); 1-800-RESPORG; and Does 1 through 10. The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Breach of Express Contract; Breach of Implied Contract; Negligence; and Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SHANE ASHTON VS PEP BOYS

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.” DISCUSSION On, Defendant served a deposition notice on Plaintiff by email. (Atherton Decl., ¶ 10, Exh. H.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

MARIA NUNEZ VS WONDERLAND MONTESSORI, LLC, 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, Defendant asserts imposition of sanctions would be unjust given Sangani’s health issues and the fact Defendant complied with the parties’ stipulation. (Opposition, pg. 11.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BLUE TOWN, LLC VS SOUTHWEST SERVICES GROUP, LLC, ET AL.

.: 19STCV27560 Hearing Date: November 30, 2020 Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery are GRANTED. Plaintiff is granted sanctions totaling $5,000. On August 5, 2019, Plaintiff Blue Town, LLC (Plaintiff) filed this action.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

FARNAZ VOJDANI ET AL VS CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS ET AL

However, while Defendants seemingly argue Plaintiffs have delayed in providing discovery responses, the court notes neither party has filed any motions to compel discovery showing that the parties have not complied with discovery requests. Moreover, although Vojdani asserts additional damages claims Azizgolshani is not asserting, including for loss of earnings, this alone does not warrant separate trials.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

STREAMING IQ, INC., ET AL. VS STEVEN LIN, ET AL.

In connection with the multiple previous motions to compel discovery responses, the Court previously asked the parties to get this resolved so as to avoid burdening the Court with more motions. The Court previously twice stated that the decision would be the same on all of these nearly identical motions. However, the parties apparently did not resolve the dispute as the motions remain on calendar. Therefore, the three motions are GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC VS COUNTY OF LA

When a party does seek to compel discovery (or seeks a protective order from a discovery request), the trial court must determine whether the discovery sought is necessary to resolve whether the agency has a duty to disclose, and to additionally consider whether the request is justified given the need for an expeditious resolution. (Id. at 289.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

IYABO SAMUEL VS LYFT INC., 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 requests $5,985 against plaintiff. The court finds that sanctions are warranted, and that plaintiff did not have substantial justification.

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

VAL MAX VS DAVID DAWUD, ET AL.

.: 19BBCV01006 Hearing Date: November 20, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses; requests for sanctions On September 23, 2020, Plaintiff Val Max (“Plaintiff”) filed 2 motions to compel initial responses from Defendant Maxone Business Services (“Maxone”) and Defendant David Dawud (“Dawud”) for Form Interrogatories (“FROG”), set one. Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,100 against each defendant.

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LISA POTTER, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS KEVIN WONG, AN INDIVIDUAL

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.” DISCUSSION On May 12, 2020, Defendant issued a subpoenas on Kaiser Foundation Hospital/SCPMG ROI Unit and So.

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

JACQUELINE SUNG VS SAIJUN LI

.: 19STCV26680 Hearing Date: November 20, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel discovery responses Plaintiff Jacqueline Sung (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel responses from Defendant Saijun Li (“Defendant”) to: (1) Request for Production of Documents, Nos. 6, 8, and 9 (“RPD”); and (2) Form Interrogatories, Nos. 1.1, 2.1 to 2.13, 4.1, 4.2, 7.1 to 7.3, 12.1, 12.4 to 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 14.1, 14.2, 16.1 to 16.10, 17.1, and 20.1 to 20.11 (“FROG”).

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

MERCEDES PALOMEQUE MENDEZ VS AMELIA SEGOVIA, 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.” DISCUSSION On June 4, 2020, Defendant Segovia served Request for Admissions (Set One) on Plaintiff by email. (Rajazi Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. A.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

RASHYN REYNOLDS, ET AL. VS AHM RESICOM LLC

The Motions to Compel Discovery will not be heard in Department 28, Spring Street Courthouse on 11-18-20. No further hearings will be heard in Department 28, Spring Street Courthouse. This case has been transferred to the Supervising Judge in Dept. W, Northwest District, for reassignment to an Independent Calendar Court, on 11-17-20.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

SHORNIKOV VS. LAKE ALHAMBRA

HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION FILED BY PLAINTIFF * TENTATIVE RULING: * The Plaintiff in this case has once again prematurely filed a motion to compel discovery. This time the motion is entitled a Motion to Compel the Defendant to Respond to a Request for Production of Documents or Things - Set #2. Plaintiff’s motion was filed on September 17, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

AMR HUSSEIN VS MATTHEW VAN PETTEN PAULEY ET AL

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

    Nov 16, 2020

SACK VS. PINNER CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.

Motion to Compel Discovery 2. Motion to Compel Discovery 3. Motion to Compel Discovery Moving Party: Plaintiff John Sack Responding Party: Defendants Pinner Construction Co. (PCC) & Dirk Griffin Ruling: Plaintiff John Sack’s Motion to Compel Further Production of Documents are GRANTED. (Motions Nos. 2 and 4). Within fifteen (15) days, Defendants Pinner Construction Co. and Dirk Griffin shall: 1. Provide a complete statement of compliance for Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 13, 18, 20 and 21. 2.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

VAL MAX VS DAVID DAWUD, ET AL.

.: 19BBCV01006 Hearing Date: November 13, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to compel discovery responses; requests for sanctions On September 23, 2020, Plaintiff Val Max (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion to compel initial responses for Form Interrogatories (“FROG”), set one against Defendant Ara Berberyan. Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,100. On March 17, 2020, Plaintiff served on Berberyan the FROG requests.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

VIRK, ET AL. V. ANAND, ET AL.

Wade in support of motion or sanctions and to compel discovery. Judicial notice may be taken of the records of any court of the United States or of any state of the United States. (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (d).) While the Court is free to take judicial notice of the existence of a document in a court file, the Court may not take judicial notice of the truth of hearsay statements in decisions and court files. (Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 882.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

ALEJANDRA PALMA GALINDO VS HNS & COMPANY LLC ET AL

Second, M&K argues that independently of the merits of Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery responses, sanctions should be not imposed against M&K because it acted with substantial justification in failing to respond, or that imposition of sanctions would be unjust. M&K’s opposition relies a substantial breakdown in communications with its client HNS, and M&K’s subsequent relief from its role as counsel of record.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

DANIEL TURCIOS VS SEA PORT CARE CENTER L P ET AL

The Motion to Deem Admitted is GRANTED. 3) Sanctions: GRANTED $3,300.00 “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.” (CRC rule 3.1348(a).) Plaintiff requests $13,300 for all five motions to compel filed against Freedom Healthcare. Plaintiff also requests an additional $13,300 for all five motions to compel filed against Friedman.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MANUEL MONDRAGON VS WOLSTAN & GOLDBERG EYE ASSOCIATES, ET AL.

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

    Nov 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 178     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.