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

ALEX PEREZ VS CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF CALIFORNIA, INC., ET AL.

.: 18STCV08567 Hearing Date: August 14, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motions to compel further responses BACKGROUND A. Allegations of the Operative Complaints Plaintiff Alex Perez (“Plaintiff”) is an employee of Cigna HealthCare, which is a tenant of the premises located at 400 N. Brand Boulevard, Glendale, CA 91203.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CELL-CRETE CORPORATION VS. SCOTT TAYLOR

If the responses were still incomplete in the opinion of Plaintiff and its counsel, Plaintiff should have met and conferred with Throop and, following unsuccessful attempts of meeting and conferring, filed another motion to compel further responses. The fact that Throop attempted to comply with the RPD productions shows that its failure to respond as thoroughly as Plaintiff was expecting was not necessarily willful.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HUGHES V. TARGET CORP.

On May 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed her third request for judicial notice in opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication, seeking judicial notice of: Defendant’s notice and motion for protective order regarding Plaintiff’s request for admissions, and Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion for protective order; and, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

DEAN FILIPOWICZ V. UNITED VETERINARY SPECIALTY & EMERGENCY, INC., ET AL.

Given the failure to discuss documents already produced Plaintiff has not shown good cause to compel further responses to these four RFPDs.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

ABBAS KAMRAN SOURESRAFIL, ET AL. VS DENNIS ALONSO, ET AL.

The Court’s view is that the 45-day deadline to file a motion to compel further responses is not implicated with boilerplate objections.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

HAROLD DAILY, ET AL. VS INTERCOMMUNITY CARE CENTERS, INC. , ET AL.

Motions to Compel Further Responses At issue today are Defendant’s motions to compel further responses to special interrogatories and requests for production of documents. The Court finds the parties have not sufficiently met and conferred regarding the discovery that forms the basis of these motions, and accordingly continues the hearing on the motions.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ROBERTSON VS. EBMUD

HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FILED BY CITY OF ORINDA * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to interrogatories is moot given plaintiff’s amended responses. Defendant’s motion to compel further responses to Request for Production number 37 is granted in part. The court rejects plaintiff’s claim of privacy. Plaintiff’s burden argument may have merit.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

WICKMAN VS. COUNTRYWOOD SHOPPING

HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES FILED BY VIVAN WICKMAN * TENTATIVE RULING: * Continued by agreement of parties to August 19, 2020 at 9:00 am.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

.: 19STCV06554 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES; PRODUCE CELL PHONE RECORDS Dept. 27 1:30 p.m. [DATE] On February 27, 2019, plaintiff Colin Hancock filed this action against Barbara Dybnis arising from a motor vehicle collision. On April 3, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further discovery responses relating to Defendant’s responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

MARGARITA BENITEZ ET AL VS DOES 1 TO 250

As such, the deadline to compel further responses from Ecolab was January 27, 2020. Fabricare served its responses on October 11, 2019. As such, the deadline to compel further responses from Fabricare was December 2, 2019. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to Ecolab was filed January 27, 2020. Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses as to Fabricare was filed December 2, 2019. As such, both motions are timely.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

DEEVER VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Plaintiffs now move to compel further responses for RPD Nos. 30-33, which involve consumer complaints and repurchase offers of vehicles of the same make, model and year as the subject vehicle and containing the same conditions, defects and nonconformities.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

FRANK FASANO AS TRUSTEE OF THE FASANO LIVING TRUST DATED JANUARY 24, 1997 VS KRE ADVISORS LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Hearing Date: August 12, 2020 Moving Parties: Defendant KRE Advisors LLC Responding Party: Plaintiff Frank Fasano, as Trustee of the Fasano Living Trust Dated January 24, 1997 Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents The court considered the moving and opposing papers. RULING Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to produce responses with in 20 days of this order.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

DUANE SMITH VS DOWNTOWN L.A. MOTORS, LP, ET AL.

Plaintiff Duane Smith's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, is DENIED in its entirety. First, Defendant Mercedes-Benz, USA, LLC is only obligated to produce documents of which it has custody, possession and/or control.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MAJOR ONI VS SADIQ ESHAQ

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (CCP § 2031.310) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Major Oni’s Motion To Compel Further Responses To Requests For Production, Set Two; Request For Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED. DEFENDANT SADIQ ESHAQ IS ORDERED TO SERVE FURTHER RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS TO THE REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET TWO, NO. 4 WITHIN 20 DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

JESSE AYALA ET AL VS FCA US LLC

Because the Court previously determined the reasonable amount of fees for those two motions when it awarded sanctions on February 28, 2019, the Court deducts the fees appearing in the “billable” column in Exhibit 5 associated with the Motion to Compel Further Requests for Admissions and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, for a total of $7,457.50.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

ROSEMARIE MCELYEA VS. MERCK & CO INC

. _____________________________________________ The following is the Court's tentative decision concerning the motion of plaintiff, Rosemarie McElyea ("McElyea") to compel further responses of defendants, Merck & Co., Inc., Merck, Sharp and Dohme, Corp., and Spencer Melton ("Merck defendants"), to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two: The Court DENIES the motion to compel further responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, in its entirety for the following reasons

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ERBABIAN V. NIGRO

Based on Defendant’s/Cross-Complainant’s (John Jason Nigro) Notice of Withdrawal of the Motions to Compel Further Responses (filed on 5-5-20 under ROA No. 132), Defendant’s/Cross-Complainant’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (filed on 5-27-20 under ROA No. 149 and scheduled for hearing on 8-11-20) is off calendar..

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

SOO OK CHOI VS SAMUEL JINKYOO KANG ET AL

The Court vacated the hearings on Plaintiff’s motions to compel further responses. 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 seeks to strike the answer of Kang, NIW, and RCU and requests that a judgment be entered against those Defendants. Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,404.00 against Defendants and Defendants’ attorneys.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

TYE VS BOWEN

The plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses from Emerald Escrow to the plaintiff’s special interrogatories 1 through 5 is continued to September 29, 2020, at 8:30 A.M. in this department. granted. The plaintiff shall file an amended notice, memorandum, and declaration no later than August 31, 2020. In the meantime, the parties shall meet and confer either in person or by voice. Analysis: The motion fails to demonstrate that the plaintiff made reasonable efforts to meet and confer with the defendant.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

KEVIN DESHAN MABRY VS DR. CHRISTENSEN, ET AL.

Defendants therefore move to compel further responses to each and every form interrogatory propounded. The motion to compel is granted. Plaintiff is bringing a medical malpractice action. There are no Fifth Amendment rights implicated by way of this action. The Court notes that Plaintiff, on 4/09/20, filed responses to Defendants’ form interrogatories. It is not clear if these responses were served on Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

CUEVAS VS. HAN

(1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Irogs (2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Irogs (3) Motion to Compel Production Tentative Ruling: (1-2) Defendant Jae Yeon Han’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories is GRANTED. (3) Defendant Jae Yeon Han’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

LOGISTICS CARGO CONCEPT INC VS WEI BIAO HE

(KC070093) _____________________________________________ Plaintiff Logistics Cargo Concept Inc.’s MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET 1) Responding Party: Defendant, Daryl Wen He Tentative Ruling Plaintiff Logistics Cargo Concept Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (Set 1) is DENIED. Sanctions are declined. Background Plaintiff Logistics Cargo Concept Inc.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

OLIVIA TORRES VS SUPER CENTER CONCEPTS, INC.

.: 19STCV19673 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO WRITTEN DISCOVERY Dept. 27 10:00 a.m. August 10, 2020 On June 5, 2019, plaintiff Olivia Torres filed this action against defendant Super Center Concepts, Inc. Defendant moves for an order compelling further responses to: (1) Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One, and (3) Form Interrogatories, Set One.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CHARLES TIMOTHY DAVIS VS SIX FLAGS THEME PARKS INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

The motion to compel further responses remains on calendar for September 9, 2020. Defendant to provide notice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TODD HOFFMAN VS ROBERT TRUMAN ET AL

Therefore, the deadline to file a motion to compel further responses for this discovery was November 30, 2018. On September 30, 2019, Defendant served RPD, Set Two, and SROG, Set One. Plaintiff served responses by mail on November 18, 2019. Therefore, the deadline to file a motion to compel further responses for this discovery was January 7, 2020. Defendant’s counsel admitted in an email that he “has blown the 45-day limit” to file a motion to compel further responses.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

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 gather your results.