What is a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories?

“Any party may obtain discovery... by propounding to any other party to the action written interrogatories to be answered under oath.” Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010(a).

The Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.210(a) provides, "The party to whom interrogatories have been propounded shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following:

  1. An answer containing the information sought to be discovered.
  2. An exercise of the party's option to produce writings.
  3. An objection to the particular interrogatory.

The Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.260(a) provides,

Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party....

The Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.270(a) explains,

The party propounding interrogatories, and the responding party may agree to extend the time for service of a response to a set of interrogatories.... (b) The agreement may be informal, but it shall be confirmed in a writing that specifies the extended date for service of a response.

The Code of Civil Procedure, section 2030.290 states,

If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:... The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories.

A protective order may be granted on a noticed motion of a party who is served with interrogatories. CCP § 2030.090(a). The motion must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt” to resolve the matter outside of court. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.090(a).

If a propounding party is not satisfied with the response served by a responding party, he may move the court to compel further interrogatory responses. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403. The propounding party must demonstrate that the responses were incomplete, inadequate or evasive, or that the responding party asserted objections that are either without merit or too general. Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.300(a)(1)–(3); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 403.

The propounding party must, in addition, establish that it complied with its obligation to “meet and confer.” Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2016.040, 2030.300(b); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 403.

Furthermore, the propounding party is required to file a Separate Statement that sets forth each item to which further response is requested and the factual and legal reasons for compelling it, as specified in CRC 3.1345(c). See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at 403.

The Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.030 limits the number of interrogatories that can be propounded to 35. §2030.090(b)(2) permits a party receiving interrogatories in excess of 35 to move for a protective order limiting the interrogatories to 35. But the Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.040 permits a party to propound more than 35 special interrogatories with a declaration of necessity.

Useful Rulings on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories

Recent Rulings on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories

1-25 of 10000 results

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

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SIMON RUIZ-HERNANDEZ VS WALTER ZAMORA, ET AL.

The Court provides notice to Plaintiff that he must address the outstanding discovery, as Defendant has filed the following motions: (1) Motion to compel responses to form interrogatories, and (2) Motion to compel responses to demand for inspection and production of documents. These motions shall be heard on January 29, 2021, at 8:30 a.m.

  • Hearing

MARIELA DIAZ, ET AL. VS JOHN RUBEN RAMOS COVARRUBIAS, ET AL.

The Court provides notice to Plaintiff that he must address the outstanding discovery, as Defendant has filed the following motions: (1) Motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, (2) Motion to compel responses to demand for inspection and production of documents, (3) Motion to compel responses to special interrogatories, and (4) Motion to deem the matters specified in the requests for admission to have been admitted. These motions shall be heard on March 8, 2021, at 8:30 a.m.

  • Hearing

JOSE ZARAGOZA-HERNANDEZ VS DOROTHY MENDOZA

The Court provides notice to Plaintiff that he must address the outstanding discovery, as Defendant has filed the following motions: (1) Motion to compel responses to Form Interrogatories, (2) Motion to compel responses to demand for inspection and production of documents, (3) Motion to compel responses to special interrogatories, and (4) Motion to deem the matters specified in the requests for admission to have been admitted. These motions shall be heard on March 8, 2021, at 8:30 a.m.

  • Hearing

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

Legal Standard For a motion to compel initial discovery responses, all a propounding party must show is that it properly served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that the party to whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 906.) Indeed, "[o]nce [a party] 'fail[ed] to serve a timely response,' the trial court had authority to grant [opposing party's] motion to compel responses."

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GEVORK ("GEORGE") BASMADJIAN, ET AL. VS HOME DEPOST U.S.A., INC;, ET AL.

.: 18STCV03993 [TENTATIVE] ORDER CONTINUING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES Dept. 31 10:00 a.m. December 1, 2020 On 10/30/20, Defendant Foremost Groups (“Defendant”) filed the instant motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set two, and request for production of documents, set two, against Plaintiff set to be heard on 12/01/20.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

REBECCA TOM V. KURT JAMES TOM

While Plaintiff was successful in opposing the motion to compel, she failed to adequately raise objections and address them in their meet and confer, therefore the Court declines to award sanctions to either party. Conclusion Defendants’ motion to compel is denied.

  • Hearing

SAINT GEORGE INSURANCE VS. TITANIUM INTERMODAL

The hearing on this scheduled motion to compel is continued to January 25, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. Once the Discovery Facilitation process is complete, if the Defendant wishes to pursue its motion to compel, it should file a pleading to that effect on or before January 6, 2020. Plaintiff shall file its response on or before January 14, 2020. The parties are advised that as of January 4, 2021 this case will be assigned to Department 36 (Judge Clare Maier) for all purposes.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

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

Legal Standards Interrogatories If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the propounding party may move for an order compelling responses and for a monetary sanction. (Code Civ Proc., § 2030.290(b).) The statute contains no time limit for a motion to compel where no responses have been served.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ARRIETA V. ASAS GROUP, INC.

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories OFF CALENDAR – Notice of Settlement filed

  • Hearing

MARGARET A DELIS ET AL VS MONTECITO FINANCIAL SERVICES INC E

On February 19, 2019, Wiedmann was served with RFPs and the interrogatories. (Murtagh Decl., ¶ 5.) Following the hearing on the first motion to compel, Plaintiff served a copy of the Notice of Ruling on Wiedmann via Federal Express overnight delivery. (Id., ¶ 12, Ex. D.) Following the hearing on the second motion to compel, Plaintiffs served a copy of the Notice of Ruling on Wiedmann by Federal Express overnight delivery. (Id., ¶ 23; Exh. G.) Wiedmann neither served responses nor produced documents.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CROWN ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC VS DAVID PECK

Peck (20PSCV00151) _____________________________________________ Defendant David Peck’s MOTION TO COMPEL INITIAL RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR IDENTIFICATION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND TANGIBLE THINGS, SET NO. ONE AND FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET NO.

  • Hearing

NAZARYAN V. FEMTOMETRIX

1) Motion to Seal 2) Motion to Seal 3) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Motion to Compel re Special Interrogatories The Motion by Defendant Femtometrix, Inc. (“Defendant”) for an order compelling Plaintiff Hovik Nazaryan to provide further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Four (the “Motion”), is denied as to nos. 94-99.

  • Hearing

TENNANT V. PACIFIC KITCHEN BATH & FLOORING, INC.

1) Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories 2) Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories 3) Motion to Compel Production 4) Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions The motions by Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Jennifer Tennant (“Plaintiff”), to compel responses by Defendant/Cross-Complainant Pacific Kitchen Bath & Flooring, Inc.

  • Hearing

WU V. ALEZANDROVA

Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories Defendant Jaroslava Alezandrova (“Defendant”) seeks an order compelling Plaintiff Jayson Wu (“Plaintiff”) to respond within 15 days, without objections, to the Judicial Council Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, propounded to Plaintiff, and also for an order that Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s attorney of record, Anthony Ranieri, pay monetary sanctions and attorney’s fees within fifteen days in the sum of $1,060.

  • Hearing

LONDY YANETH VENEGAS BOLERES VS LIFESTYLE LANDSCAPE GROUP, INC., ET AL.

.: 19STCV39463 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND MONETARY SANCTIONS Dept. 27 1:30 p.m. November 30, 2020 On November 4, 2019, plaintiff Londy Yaneth Venegas Boleres (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Lifestyle Landscape Group Inc. (erroneously sued as Lifestyle Landscape), Aron Isamu Miyata, Erica Miyata, and Kelvin Gonzalez (collectively, “Defendants”) arising from a November 6, 2017 automobile accident.

  • Hearing

HARRIS V. THE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.

1) Motion to Compel Further Response to Form Interrogatories 2) Motion to Compel Production – OFF CALENDAR by Moving Party The Court grants the Motion by Plaintiff Katherine Harris (“Plaintiff”) to Compel Defendant The Management Association Inc. (“Defendant”) to provide further supplemental responses to Form Interrogatories, Employment, Set One, Nos. 201.1, 207.2, 209.2, and 216.1. Defendant is ordered to provide further supplemental responses within 20 days.

  • Hearing

SOLTER V. WU

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and Wu’s motion to compel further responses to form interrogatories are moot. However, the Court may still order sanctions against Plaintiff as requested in the motions. Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.450, subd. (g)(1) and (2) and 2030.300, subd. (d); Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1348(a).

  • Hearing

DINAN V. BARELA

This matter is on calendar for Judgment Creditor’s motion to compel Defendant Eric Gabriel Barela to respond to post-judgment requests for production of documents (“RPODs”) and post-judgment form interrogatories (“FIs”) and for monetary sanctions. The Motion is GRANTED, except that as a pro per, Judgment Creditor may only recover the $90 in costs incurred as sanctions.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Elliot L

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

ERBABIAN V. NIGRO

Based on the Notice of Settlement filed on 11-10-20 under ROA No. 213 and the court’s 11-16-20 Minute Order, Plaintiff’s and Cross-Defendant’s (Abraham Gregory Erbabian) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (filed on 7-9-20 under ROA No. 169, and scheduled for hearing on 11-24-20) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories (filed on 7-10-20 under ROA No. 181, and scheduled for hearing on 11-24-20) are off calendar.

  • Hearing

EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP V. STOLL

Motion No. 1: Cross-Defendant’s (William Parrish) unopposed Motion to Compel Michael Avenatti’s Responses to Cross-Defendant’s Special Interrogatories, Set One (Motion), filed on 7-19-19, is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

HWA JA PARK, ET AL. VS SAMHO TOUR, INC. , ET AL.

SUBJECT: (1) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Plaintiff Diana Park) Moving Party: Defendant Samho Tour, Inc. Resp. Party: None (2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories (Plaintiff Hwa Ja Park) Moving Party: Defendant Samho Tour, Inc. Resp. Party: None (3) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admission (Plaintiff Diana Park) Moving Party: Defendant Samho Tour, Inc. Resp.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Sanctions “The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(c).)

  • Hearing

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

(“Plaintiff”) served discovery including special interrogatories and form interrogatories on Defendant Steven Lin and document requests on Defendant Abovelab, Inc. Plaintiff granted extensions of time to respond. The responses never came. Plaintiff filed motion to compel responses against Abovelab and Lin. In their opposition, Abovelab and Lin state they will serve complete verified responses before the hearing date.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

TEAM MAKENA, LLC VS. LASSO

Ossur Americas, Inc.’s (Ossur’s) motion to compel SpartaMed, LLC (SpartaMed) to serve verified responses to Ossur’s Form Interrogatories - General, Set One, without objections; 2. Ossur’s motion to compel SpartaMed to serve verified responses to Ossur’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, without objection; 3. Ossur’s motion to compel SpartaMed to serve verified responses to Ossur’s Request for Production of Documents, Set One, without objection; 4.

  • Hearing

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.