What is a Motion to Compel Initial Responses?

“When a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to respond, under CCP § 2030.290(b) a party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling a response. A party who fails to provide a timely response waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product.” Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290(a).

For a motion to compel initial responses, no meet and confer is required. All that needs to be shown is that a set of interrogatories was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. Leach v. Super. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App 3d 902, 905-06.

“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 does not have to demonstrate either good cause or that it satisfied a ‘meet and confer’ requirement.” Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.

Useful Rulings on Motion to Compel Initial Responses

Recent Rulings on Motion to Compel Initial Responses

JANE MI VS HOSSEIN ZAHED ZADEH

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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, subd.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

ASHLEY KING VS MIGUEL CASTRO

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) and 2031.300, subd. (c).) However, sanctions are not mandatory if the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

MILCAH M. FOUNTAIN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to compel responses to interrogatories against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

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

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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, subd.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

CHRISTOPHER J MARTIN VS KARSA HEJAZI

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to compel responses to interrogatories and a request for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

  • 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

TERESA TORRES VS FOOD 4 LESS OF CA INC ET AL

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to compel responses to interrogatories against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

DAVID HARRIMAN VS RODOLFO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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, subd.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

SARAH PARSINIA ET AL VS J SANTOS SANDOVAL AVELAR ET AL

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to compel responses to interrogatories and a request for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

  • 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

LIOR ADAR VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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, subd.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC VS MIDWEST NATIONAL AUTO SALES & LEASE, LLC, ALIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES; (CCP § 2030.290) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Westlake Services, Inc.’s Motion Compelling Defendant John Breckenridge To Respond To Form Interrogatories and for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED. Verified responses without objections are to be served within 20 days’ notice of this order. Sanctions of $425.00 are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days’ notice of this order.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

JEAN LAHIJANI VS AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES ET AL

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true and motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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, subd.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SERGIO MARTINEZ VS STAN BOYETT & SON, INC.

There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to interrogatories or production of documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a), 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.) No meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANGEL ANDRES ROJAS, A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, MARIA DE JESUS ROJAS VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) and 2031.300, subd. (c).) However, sanctions are not mandatory if the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RANDALL ROBART VS MARLON GONZALES

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Marlon Gonzalez’s (1) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Request for Monetary Sanctions; and (2) Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Responses to Request for Production, Request for Monetary Sanctions are GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC. D/B/A/ VTS SERVICES, A NEVADA CORPORATION VS THOMAS D. WOOLSEY, ET AL.

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c). Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BLANCA LETICIA LYNN ALVAREZ, ET AL. VS GERARDO A. RODRIGUEZ

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES; MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Gerardo A. Rodriguez and Beatriz Cordero’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff Alvarez to Answer Form and Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff Alvarez is ordered to provide verified responses without objections within thirty (30) days of service of this order.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BLANCA LETICIA LYNN ALVAREZ, ET AL. VS GERARDO A. RODRIGUEZ

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES; MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Gerardo A. Rodriguez and Beatriz Cordero’s Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff Alvarez to Answer Form and Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff Alvarez is ordered to provide verified responses without objections within thirty (30) days of service of this order.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ROBERT ATILANO VS LANE RAY MORGAN

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with a motion to compel responses to interrogatories and a motion to deem matters specified in a request for admissions as true against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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, subd. (c), 2033.280, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CHRISTOPHER MCGEE VS SAHAR SHARIFI

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES; MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Sahar Sharifi’s (1) Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Answer Form and Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses to Form and Special Interrogatories without objections within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CHRISTOPHER MCGEE VS SAHAR SHARIFI

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES; MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Sahar Sharifi’s (1) Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Answer Form and Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses to Form and Special Interrogatories without objections within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION; MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300; 2033.280) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Westlake Services, LLC’s Motion is CONTINUED to MAY 19, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. Plaintiff is ordered to pay three additional filing fees.

  • Hearing

    Mar 19, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARQUIS PATTERSON VS MOISES CUELLAR, ET AL.

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

DORJON LUBYCK VS CENTURY VILLAGES AT CABRILLO, INC.

Sanctions are mandatory in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel unless the court “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, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 44     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.