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 Rulings on Motion to Compel Further Responses

Recent Rulings on Motion to Compel Further Responses

1-25 of 10000 results

FARBOD MELAMED VS PARALLAX HEALTH SCIENCES INC ET AL

.: BC715051 Hearing Date: September 17, 2020 Defendant Melamed’s motion to compel further responses from the California Board of Pharmacy to its subpoena is GRANTED as to Categories 7 and 13-16. On July 30, 2018, Plaintiff Farbod Melamed (Plaintiff) filed suit against Parallax Health Sciences, Inc., Edward W. Withrow III, Calli Bucci, and Shala Melamed (collectively, Defendants).

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LIWEN HSU TOGI VS CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA

DISCUSSION OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES City moves to compel WCA’s further response to SROG No. 2 only. SROG No. 2 asks WCA to identify any and all of its employees who pruned the subject tree (Inventory ID No. 155337) during the calendar year 2019.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JANE ROE VS JAMES A MACER, M.D., ET AL.

ORDER Plaintiff Jane Roe's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories came on regularly for hearing on October 23, 2020, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: THE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES IS GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

COREEN GONZALEZ VS CITY OF MONTEREY PARK ET AL

Merits – City moves to compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 9.1 and 12.1 and Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 12, 13, 18, 19, 36, 48, and 60.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

HTTP://WWW.SCSCOURT.ORG (FOR CLERK'S USE ONLY)

Motion of Plaintiff to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions. On 5 February 2020, plaintiffs served their first set of requests for production of documents seeking documents concerning internal investigation and analysis plaguing the subject vehicle. Plaintiffs are trying to establish that defendant Ford previously knew of such defects prior to selling the vehicle to plaintiff as well as Ford’s warranty and repurchase policies.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

ARTNER WEST VS. ITALIAN KITCHEN

s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Sanctions. Plaintiff Artner West Construction, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One; Request for Sanctions. Plaintiff Artner West Construction, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One; Request for Sanctions. The Court intends to GRANT Plaintiff Arnter West Constructions, Inc.'

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

SALON REBELLE, LLC VS. LOVE

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Third Set of Special Interrogatories, No. 59 from Defendant Dianne Davis; 2. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Third Set of Requests for Production, No. 53 from Defendant Dianne Davis (“Davis”); 3. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Third Set of Special Interrogatories, No. 64 from Defendant Ron Love. 4.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

OROZCO VS. TRANSDIGM GROUP, INC.

(See Ziegel Decl., ¶ 9 and Ziegel Decl., ¶ 10; see also Holloman Decl., ¶¶ 23 ($4,617 for the Motion to Compel Further responses to the RFPs) and 24 ($6,156 for the Motion to Compel Further responses to the Special Interrogatories).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

SANTIAGO IBARRA VS PACIFIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10 INCLUSIVE

Plaintiff believes the responses to interrogatories 1-12 are deficient, and moves to compel further responses. The hearing on the motion to compel is continued for two reasons. First, the Court finds the parties’ meet and confer efforts were insufficient. Plaintiff, instead of conversing about the perceived deficiencies in the discovery, or even writing a letter, merely mailed Defendant a draft of the motion to compel. Defendant wrote a detailed meet and confer letter on 6/16/20.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ALEX LOZANO VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC.

.: 19NWCV00948 HEARING: 10/22/2020 #6 TENTATIVE ORDER Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one) is DENIED. Moving Party to give Notice. Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant’s further responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one) Nos. 7, 10, 16-19, 21, 34, 38, 41-42, 51, and 59-62.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SANCHEZ MARTINEZ VS. JR STEEL REINFORCING CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC.

The court will then set an informal discovery conference or issue additional orders as necessary. (3) Defendant JR Steel’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One This motion is DENIED in its entirety. Defendant was required to meet and confer before filing this motion but failed to do so.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

SOO OK CHOI VS SAMUEL JINKYOO KANG ET AL

The Court vacated the hearings on Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses. Plaintiff’s First Motion for Terminating Sanctions On July 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed and served a motion for terminating sanctions and a request for monetary sanctions against Defendants and their attorneys. Plaintiff sought to strike the answer of Kang, NIW, and RCU and requested that a judgment be entered against those Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

KRISTIN HIRAI, ET AL. VS SKATING EDGE ICE ARENA, ET AL.

Upcoming Motions to Compel Further Responses The Court notes that there are MTCFs scheduled on 10/27/20 and 10/29/20. The Court wishes to hear the two motions at the same time. The Court therefore continues the 10/27/20 hearing to 10/29/20 at 8:30 a.m. in Department S27 of the Long Beach Courthouse, so the two motions can be heard contemporaneously. Moving Defendants are ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

89 ACAPULCO, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF AUXIN VENTURES, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS DAVID ELIAS, ET AL.

Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses and production of documents as to 1-31, 36-51, 57, 58, 60-69, 72-80, 84-98.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

YURI HERNANDEZ VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC

.: 19NWCV00765 HEARING: 10/22/2020 #5 TENTATIVE ORDER Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one) is DENIED. Opposing Party to give Notice. Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant’s further responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one) Nos. 7, 10, 16-23, 26-27, 41, 46, 50-52, and 61-62.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

EDITH ANNE PETRUCCI ET AL VS 7 ELEVEN DISTRIBUTION COMPANY

In the December 24, 2019 order on Defendant Fontem US, Inc,’s motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, the court did limit discovery into other health conditions beyond pulmonary and cardiovascular conditions. Specifically, “ as discussed at the hearing, because medications and treatments may lead to complications many years after initial exposure, Plaintiff must also identify all drugs, medications, and treatments that she has taken in the last twenty years.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

602 NORTH GRAND AVENUE L.P. VS FITNESS ALLIANCE, LLC

A motion to compel further responses to requests for admissions may be made on the grounds that an answer is incomplete or evasive, or an objection is without merit. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.290, subd. (a)(1)–(2).) Plaintiff served discovery upon Defendant on April 30, 2020, and Defendant served responses on June 17, 2020. (Uss Decl. ¶¶ 2–3.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

EVELYN GARCIA VS FCA US LLC

.: 19STCV21536 Hearing Date: October 21, 2020 Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff Evelyn Garcia (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendant FCA US LLC (“Defendant”) to provide further responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) Nos. 7, 16-21, 35-39, 42, 50. (Notice of Motion pg. i.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

CARING ANGELS HOME CARE, LLC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS DONALD WEITZMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF SUE CAROL WEITZMAN

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES Defendant Donald Weitzman (“Defendant”) filed this motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents served on Plaintiff Caring Angels Home Care, LLC (“Plaintiff”). In this case, Plaintiff alleges Defendant failed to pay for the services provided to Sue Carol Weitzman. Defendant contends Plaintiff was supposed to have provided 24 hour care, Plaintiff was not to bill for overtime or late fees, and the bill is excessive.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PATRICIA BRISTOW VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ET AL.

.: 19STCV38903 Hearing Date: October 21, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to compel further responses to request for production of documents, SET ONE The Court finds Plaintiff’s discovery to be overly broad and unduly burdensome.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

EUN AH KIM ET AL VS PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM SOUTHERN CALIFO

This includes a motion to compel further responses to demand for inspection of documents or tangible things. CRC Rule 3.1020(a)(3).

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

NITA DIXIT, D.D.S. VS LOUISE G MANDELL, , PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF MICHAEL L. MANDELL, DECEASED (TRUST ADMINISTRATION OF THE MANDELL FAMILY TRUST

20STCV23244 NITA DIXIT vs LOUISE G MANDELL Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission and for Sanctions TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s responses do not comply with Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220. Furthermore, when the RFA’s were served, there was no pending motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiff is ordered to serve verified, code-compliant responses within 15 days and to pay Defendants sanctions in the amount of $2,100 (6 hours at $350/hr).

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

A motion to compel further responses to a request for admissions must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290(b).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

A motion to compel further responses to a request for admissions must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290(b).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

A motion to compel further responses to a request for admissions must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290(b).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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.