Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

Useful Rulings on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

Recent Rulings on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

JANE MI VS HOSSEIN ZAHED ZADEH

On February 20, 2020, Defendant filed motions to compel verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300. Trial is set for October 29, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

FRIDA KORSHUNOVA VS 1116 MAPLE STREET, LLC

.: 19STCV07557 Hearing Date: July 8, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to compel discovery responses Defendant 1116 Maple Street, LLC (“Defendant”) moves to compel responses from Plaintiff Frida Korshunova (“Plaintiff”) to Special Interrogatories (“SROG”), Sets Three and Four. Defendant served SROG, Set Three, on Plaintiff by mail on January 21, 2020. Defendant served SROG, Set Four, on Plaintiff by mail on January 27, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ASHLEY KING VS MIGUEL CASTRO

On June 5, 2020, Defendant filed motions to compel Plaintiff to provide verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300. Also on June 5, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to deem the matters in Request for Admissions (Sets One) as true against Plaintiff pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

KIMBERLY CARVALHO-FAUCHER VS SERVICE CONCIERGE INC, A BUSINESS ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN, ET AL.

On March 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant Service Concierge, Inc. to provide verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300. Trial is set for July 22, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

MCKESSON SPECIALTY CARE DISTRIBUTION CORP. VS. LOS ALAMITOS HEMATOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP

Motion: 1) Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories 2) Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories 3) Compel Production 4) Deem Facts Admitted Moving Party: Plaintiff McKesson Specialty Care Distribution Corporation. Responding Party: None. Opposition: None Ruling: Motions 1,2,3 and 4) Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted. Responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents are due 30 days after service (plus appropriate time for method of service). (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.260; 2031.260.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

ANDRE HARRIS, ET AL. VS ANTHONY GARCIA

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Anthony Garcia’s Motions For Order Compelling Plaintiffs to Respond to Special Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents; Request For Sanctions are GRANTED solely as to Plaintiff Andre Harris.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

EASY TRUCK INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. V. TEXCAZ TRANSBORDER INSURANCE INTERMEDIARIES, INC.

Motion No. 5: Defendant’s/Cross-Complainant’s (Manuel Juarez) Motion to Compel Brett Moore’s Responses to Manuel Juarez’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) (Motion), filed on 12-12-19 under ROA Nos. 157, 158, and 159, is DENIED as MOOT.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

TERESA TORRES VS FOOD 4 LESS OF CA INC ET AL

On February 19, 2020, Defendant Food 4 Less of California, Inc. dba Food 4 Less filed a motion to compel verified responses without objections to Special Interrogatories (Set Two) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290. A trial setting conference is set for July 2, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

BALBOA CAPITAL CORPORATION VS. ID LIGHTING SOLUTIONS INC.

Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories X2 2. Motion to Compel Answers to Special Interrogatories X2 3. Motion to Compel Production X2 4. Motion to Deem Facts Admitted X2 The court grants Plaintiff Balboa Capital Corporation’s unopposed Motions to Compel Initial Responses to Discovery. Requests for Admission, Sets One, are admitted as to each Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

CALIFORNIA STATE GRANGE, ET AL. V. SAN LUIS OBISPO GUILD HALL

Special Interrogatories Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel a further response to special interrogatory nos. 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 18 is granted. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel a further response to interrogatory no. 8 is denied. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is denied. Requests for Production Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to RFPs is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

BRAZIL A. ALLEN VS WARREN W. VALDRY, ET AL.

Defendants now demur to all causes of action except for the third cause of action on the basis that each fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Defendants also move to strike the request for punitive damages and attorney fees from the Complaint. The demurrer and motion to strike are unopposed. Valdry separately moves to compel Allen to respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Special Interrogatories, Set One, and Request for Production of Documents, Set One.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JANICE POIRIER VS SHAUN IRWIN

Plaintiff therefore seeks an order compelling Defendant to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery, deeming the RFAs admitted, and requiring Defendant and Defense Counsel to pay sanctions. Plaintiff’s motions to compel are granted. Defendant is ordered to serve verified responses to form interrogatories, special interrogatories and RPDs, without objections, within ten days. CCP §§2030.290(a),(b), 2031.300(a),(b). Plaintiff’s motion to deem RFAs admitted is granted. CCP §2033.280(b).

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

DAVID HARRIMAN VS RODOLFO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

On February 11, 2020, Defendant Rodolfo Rodriguez filed motions to compel verified responses without objections to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Request for Production (All Set One) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.290 and 2031.300. On April 17, 2020, the Court continued the hearings on Defendant Rodolfo Rodriguez’s discovery motions to July 2, 2020. Trial is set for September 2, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

AARON HIDALGO VS RAFAEL CROVER, ET AL.

The motion is unopposed and granted. Relief is effective upon filing proof of service of the final order on Client. Motions to Compel Defendants propounded form interrogatories, special interrogatories, RFAs, and RPDs on Plaintiff on 1/03/20. To date, despite an attempt to meet and confer, Plaintiff has not served responses.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

COMMUNICATIONS RELAY, LLC VS BRANDON NAVARRO

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§ 2030.290) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Communications Relay, LLC’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to provide verified responses without objections to Special Interrogatories within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

VALIEH ESTEPANIAN VS RAFFI'S MARKET & GROCERY, A BUSINESS ENTITY UNKNOWN, ET AL.

Defendants’ Motions are GRANTED and Plaintiff is ordered to served verified responses, without objections, to Defendants’ Special Interrogatories (Set 1), Form Interrogatories (Set 1), and Demand to Produce (Set 1) within 20 days of the date of this Order. Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

DOODU, INC. VS C&L FASHIONS AND DESIGNS, INC., ET AL.

There are no facts presented to the Court showing Lee acted with a substantial justification or that other circumstances exist showing an imposition of sanctions would be unjust. Sanctions: For the Motions to Compel Responses to the Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Demand for Production, Complainant’s Counsel requests $465 in sanctions for each motion. Complainant’s Counsel’s hourly rate is $250 per hour.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

AUCK VS ALLEN OLDSMOBILE CADILLAC, INC.

Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Further Responses from Defendant General Motors LLC’s (GM) to (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One (FI), (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One (SI), (3) Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (RFD), and (4) Requests for Admissions, Set One (RFA); and to Compel Further Responses from Defendant AOC Oldsmobile Cadillac, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

M.C. VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL.

Sections 2023.010(d), 2025.450(g)(1), 2030.290(c), and 2031.300(c) authorize a court to impose sanctions for failure to respond to discovery without substantial justification. Moreover, section 2031.310(h) mandates sanctions for a party who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel a further response to a demand for documents. On May 31, 2019, Defendant served its Form Interrogatories, Set One; Special Interrogatories, Set One; and Request for Production of Documents, Set One on Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

ELMER R CASTELLANOS ET AL VS ETHAN JOHN WHITED

In its order of November 15, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses to special interrogatories and requests for production of documents that Defendant served on Plaintiff within 60 days of notice of the order. Defendant served Plaintiff with notice of the ruling by mail on November 18, 2019. Plaintiff thus had until January 22, 2020 to serve responses in compliance with this Court’s order. As of the filing date of these motions, Plaintiff has not served responses to the discovery.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

DAVID HALCROW VS JUSTIN UNDERWOOD, ET AL.

By failing to respond, the offending party waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).) Discussion Defendants move for an order compelling Plaintiff’s responses without objections to Defendants’ Request for Admissions, Set One; Form Interrogatories, Sets One and Two; Request for Production of Documents, Set One; and Special Interrogatories. Defendants argue that the subject discovery was served on December 30, 2019 and January 15, 2020. (Shin Decl. ¶ 2; Exh. A.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JAMIE ARNETT VS JUAN JOSE BOJORGE ET AL

The Court also orders Plaintiff to serve a responsive statement of damages within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where the court grants a motion to compel responses, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

LAUREN JOSEPHSON VS CASA HERMOSA APARTMENTS ET AL

Sanctions No sanctions are imposed in connection with this motion. Issues relating to appearance at deposition and IME have been rendered complicated in light of the ongoing pandemic. The Court will not sanction the parties or attorneys in this case and, again, asks Counsel to resolve these issues without court intervention if at all possible. Motion for Relief from Waiver of Objections Plaintiff served form interrogatories, special interrogatories, RPDs, and RFAs on Defendants on 11/14/19.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

SINCERITY, INC. D/B/A SERVPRO OF CENTRAL GLENDALE VS SHAJARI ABOLFAZI

Abolfazi MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY (CCP § 2030.290, 2031.300, 2033.280, 2023.010 et seq) Moving Party: Plaicntiff Sincerity, Inc. dba Servpro of Central Glendale Responding Party: Defendant Abolfazl Shajari (No Opposition) RELIEF REQUESTED: Responses to First Set of Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents, and to deem the genuineness of documents and the truth of matters specified in First Set of Admissions CHRONOLOGY Date Discovery served

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MANDIR INC. V. TIWARI, ET AL.

Defendant Vishwanath Tiwari’s unopposed motions to compelling Plaintiff Mandir, Inc.’s responses to special interrogatories, set one, and requests for production, set two, are granted. A propounding party may move for an order compelling responses to interrogatories at any time “[i]f a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290 subd. (b).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 157     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.