What is a Motion to Compel Further Responses?

A party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories on the grounds that the answer is evasive or incomplete, an exercise of the option to produce documents under the Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, and/or an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(a).)

How to Structure the Motion

A motion to compel further responses to interrogatories must include a meet and confer declaration pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, section 2016.040 and a separate statement. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(b); Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345.)

The separate statement must provide “all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all responses to it that are at issue. The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response... The separate statement must include... the following:

  1. The text of the request, interrogatory, question, or inspection demand;
  2. The text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers;
  3. A statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute;
  4. If necessary, the text of all definitions, instructions, and other matters required to understand each discovery request and the responses to it;
  5. If the response to a particular discovery request is dependent on the response given to another discovery request, or if the reasons a further response to a particular discovery request is deemed necessary are based on the response to some other discovery request, the other request and the response to it must be set forth; and
  6. If the pleadings, other documents in the file, or other items of discovery are relevant to the motion, the party relying on them must summarize each relevant document.”

(Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1345(c).)

Response

If a timely motion to compel has been filed, the burden is on the responding party to justify any objection or failure to fully answer the interrogatories. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

Timeline

Notice of the motion must be “given within 45 days of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any specific later date to which the propounding party and the responding party have agreed in writing.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(c).)

Useful Resources for Motion to Compel Further Responses

Recent Rulings on Motion to Compel Further Responses

1-25 of 10000 results

ELINTON GRAMAJO VS JOE'S PIZZA ON SUNSET INC ET AL

Plaintiff now moves compel further responses from Defendant Giuseppe Vitale (Defendant) to seven discovery motions. Discussion In the IDC, Plaintiff raised concerns that: (1) verified responses had not been received, and (2) Defendant’s responses were not code compliant. It appears that the issue of verification has been resolved. However, the issue of code-compliancy remains. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s supplemental responses do not comply with the requirements in CCP section 2033.220..

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

DAVID ALVAREZ VS FRANCISCO DIAZ

Rice Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Moving Party: Plaintiff David Alvarez Responding Party: Defendant Francisco Diaz Ruling: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is continued. Plaintiff David Alvarez (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendant Francisco Diaz (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, numbers 1-7, 17, 31, 50 and 51.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ADRIAN MADDEN VS GURUCUL SOLUTIONS, LLC

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Number 5. 2. Sanctions Plaintiff “seeks $4,500 in discovery sanctions.” (First Amended Notice of Motion, p. 2:8.) Plaintiff was not successful in bringing his motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, thus his request for sanctions is not warranted.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

NEW MILLENNIUM BUSINESS CONSULTANTS, INC. VS MYMAIL MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL.

On December 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motions to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; and to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One. On December 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel further responses to Requests for Admissions, Set One.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SMITH VS. AMERICOR FUNDING, INC.

Ruling Motion 3) Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production (Set Two) is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a), (b)(1).) A responding party that fails to serve timely responses waives “any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280(a).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

ADAM ALCANTARA VS RUDE DOG BAR & GRILL, INC., ET AL.

., et al. (20STCV07958) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff Adam Alcantara’s MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT RUDE DOG BAR & GRILL, INC.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RACHELE RIVERA, ET AL. VS JJ F&B, INC, ET AL.

.: 18STCV02843 Hearing Date: January 15, 2021 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to compel further responses and production of documents (supplemental) BACKGROUND A. Allegations Plaintiffs Rachele Rivera and Raymond Rivera (“Plaintiffs”) are husband and wife. Plaintiffs allege that on April 14, 2017, they were eating at a sushi restaurant owned by Defendant JJ F&B, Inc. dba the Sushi by Jin (“Defendant”). They allege that Defendant’s agent dropped a case of beer on Mrs. Rivera, causing her injuries. Mr.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FRANK ORTEGA VS WHEELS FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC

CONCLUSION Starbucks’ motion to compel further responses to its Special Interrogatories is granted in part and denied in part. Starbucks’ motion to compel further responses to its Requests to Produce is granted. Plaintiff is to provide further responses within 30 days. Each party’s request for sanctions is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GUILLERMINA CARBONARO, ET AL. VS LUKE ROOFING, INC. , ET AL.

On 12/16/20, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, set one, against Gutierrez concerning his cellphone records. Gutierrez filed an opposition, and Plaintiffs filed a reply. Plaintiffs, in their reply, request the motion be withdrawn, in part, because Gutierrez provided a declaration that he was not using his cellphone at the time of the accident.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

MARIA CARMEN LEAL VS. NELLY DAGSTANYAN

Dagstanyan on December 17, 2018, and his responses were subject to a motion to compel further responses to RPD Nos. 1-50, which the Court granted on April 19, 2019. (Mot., Ex. 1 [12/17/18 RPD Requests], Ex. 2 [4/19/19 Minute Order].) It states that Becharoff ultimately agreed to produce several categories of documents, but the production was incomplete. (Id., Ex. 3 [5/9/19 RPD Responses]; Ex. 4 [12/8/20 Meet and Confer Letter].)

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ZOHAR MANAGEMENT, LLC VS HOLLOWAY DRIVE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

On December 15, 2020, Defendant Holloway Drive, LLC filed the instant unopposed amended motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories, set one and unopposed motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, set one. ANALYSIS: I. Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses A.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MICHAEL GARCIA VS STARBUCKS CORPORATION

Second, Defendant argues that the motion should be denied because Defendant served further responses to Plaintiff’s three motions to compel further responses pending at the time this motion was filed. On January 11, 2021, the Court indeed ruled that Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses to request for admission, form interrogatories, and requests for production were moot in light of Defendant serving verified “further” responses.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BASMA ISMAIL VS CAROLYN CAMPBELL

Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses is not subject to a 45-day time limit and the propounding party has no meet and confer obligations. (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.) Plaintiff filed no opposition to these Motions and it is undisputed Plaintiff failed to serve responses to Defendant’s discovery. However, the Court notes that Defendant filed two motions to compel instead of filing one motion for each set of discovery.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

LISA GOODRICH VS GUILLERMO EDUARDO PADILLA JR ET AL

., et al.MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY (2) Moving Party: Defendants Guillermo Eduardo Padilla and Greenwood Motor Lines, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

AAA T.L.C. HEALTH CARE, INC VS BARBARA DAVIS

If Plaintiff is dissatisfied with these responses, Plaintiff should have filed motions to compel further responses along with the required separate statements. If a motion to compel response is filed, the court “shall” impose a monetary sanction against the losing party unless it finds that party made or opposed the motion “with substantial justification” or other reasons make the sanction “unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

SPARKART GROUP, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS WILLIAM WALLACE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Following meet and confer, the parties agreed to an extension of the deadline for Jain to move to compel further responses, and on July 6, 2020, D&B indicated it would serve supplemental responses; however, supplemental responses to the written discovery were never provided. (Decl. of Weatherup ¶¶5-12, Exhs. E, F, G, H, I, J, K.) Jain filed the instant motion on August 17, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CATALINA LAPUERTA VS WON SUK KIM REAL ESTATE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Catalina LaPuerta OPPOSING PARTY: Defendant, Eddie Jung TRIAL DATE: None PROOF OF SERVICE: OK PROCEEDING: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One OPPOSITION: None – Notice of Non-Opposition January 8, REPLY: No opposition filed. TENTATIVE: If Plaintiff proves Defendant’s written agreement extending Plaintiff’s time to move to compel to December 18, 2020, Plaintiff’s motion is granted.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SOL DE LA CRUZ VS DAYAN PROPERTY SERVICES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Therefore, although Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s motion is untimely and procedurally improper as a motion to compel further responses, the Court does not find that the rules applicable to motions to compel further responses apply here. Nevertheless, the Court also notes that the remedy for failure to comply with a discovery order is not another order compelling compliance with the discovery order but sanctions as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

VAKILI V. ABDELGANY

Plaintiff Shahab Vakili's motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories nos. 13.1 and 13.2, is granted. A party may move to compel further responses to interrogatories on the grounds that the answer is evasive or incomplete, an exercise of the option to produce documents under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate, and/or an objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general. (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

RODRIGUEZ VS. DYNAMIC AUTO IMAGES, INC.

s Further Responses to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set One Plaintiff Edith Rodriguez’s motion to compel further responses to her first set of special interrogatories (SIs) from Defendants Automotive Creations, Inc., Expert Automotive Reconditioning, Inc., and Prestige Auto Specialists, Inc. is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: Per her request in reply, Plaintiff’s request for further responses to SIs 10-13 is WITHDRAWN.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

JENIFER EDELMAN VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC ET AL

Rice Plaintiffs’ Combined Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production and Special Interrogatories Moving Party: Plaintiffs People of the State of California ex rel. ILWU-PMA Welfare Plan and ILWU-PMA Welfare Plan Responding Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant David Rivera Chiropractic, Inc. Ruling: Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to Requests for Production, Set One, and Special Interrogatories, Set One, is granted.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ADRIAN MADDEN VS GURUCUL SOLUTIONS, LLC

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Numbers 15-26, and Set Two, Number 25. 2. Sanctions Plaintiff “seeks $4,500 in discovery sanctions.” (Second Amended Notice of Motion, p. 2:8-9.) Plaintiff was not successful in bringing his motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, thus his request for sanctions is not warranted.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MARISOL GARCIA ET AL VS WEBER DISTRIBUTION LLC ET AL

The Court notes that Defendant is not foreclosed from moving to compel further responses, if necessary. Sanctions are mandatory pursuant to the terms of CCP §2033.280(c). Therefore, sanctions are awarded as follows: Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay Defendant WEBER DISTRIBUTION, LLC and its counsel of record sanctions in the total amount of $2,686.65.00 ($375/hr. x 7 hrs.) + ($61.65 costs) no later than 90 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ADRIAN MADDEN VS GURUCUL SOLUTIONS, LLC

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One, Numbers 15-26, and Set Two, Number 25. 2. Sanctions Plaintiff “seeks $4,500 in discovery sanctions.” (Second Amended Notice of Motion, p. 2:8-9.) Plaintiff was not successful in bringing his motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, thus his request for sanctions is not warranted.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MANSOUR HASHEM ET AL VS AMANDA GLOVER

Plaintiff now moves to compel further responses to the discovery. (A bit of house-keeping: Plaintiff has, essentially filed 4 motions. Government Code section 70617 (a) and (f) require a $60 fee for each motion, yet Plaintiff has only paid one $60 fee. Before any order issued pursuant to these motions is effective, Plaintiff must post the additional three $60 fees.) Discussion A party may compel further responses to discovery if the party feels that an objection asserted in response to the discovery.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.