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

TECHBILT CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION VS STUCKERT

The court must impose monetary sanctions against any party who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel responses 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." Cal. Code Civ. P. § 2030.290(c).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ADVANCED DERMATOLOGY VS SAUCEDO

The plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents, and to deem requests for admissions to have been admitted, is granted. The defendant shall serve complete responses to the interrogatories and requests for production of documents without objection within 20 days of the date of the hearing. The request for sanctions is granted in the sum of $350. Analysis: The request for sanctions is excessive.

  • Hearing

MANUEL MONDRAGON VS WOLSTAN & GOLDBERG EYE ASSOCIATES, 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

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

LAWRENCE MARK VS SURINDER SINGH

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

ALFREDO NORIEGA, ET AL. VS RENUKA GENGANI SENAVIRATHNA

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

DAMIEN CHOU VS MARC PHILLPPE SERION LIU, ET AL.

PARTY: Plaintiff Damien Chou MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS (CCP §§ 2030.290; 2031.300) PROCEEDINGS: (4) MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff’s Counsel Armen Zadourian RESP. PARTY: None MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL (CCP § 284(2); CRC rule 3.1362) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Marc Philippe, Serion Liu, and Karla Rabor’s Discovery Motions are GRANTED.

  • Hearing

TONY TO CHONG LOO, ET AL. VS ZIXI LI, ET AL.

Section 2030.290(b) allows the propounding party to file a motion to compel responses to interrogatories if a response has not been received. If responses are untimely, responding party waives objections. (CCP § 2030.290(a).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

TONY TO CHONG LOO, ET AL. VS ZIXI LI, ET AL.

Section 2030.290(b) allows the propounding party to file a motion to compel responses to interrogatories if a response has not been received. If responses are untimely, responding party waives objections. (CCP § 2030.290(a).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

DAMARIS PINEDA VS MARINKA NEMETH, 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

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

Shajari MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES Moving Party: Defendant Abolfazi Shajari Responding Party: Plaintiff Sincerity, Inc. dba Servpro of Central Glendale RELIEF REQUESTED: Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One CHRONOLOGY Date Discovery served: May 2, 2019 Extension to respond to: June 21, 2019 Date Responses served: NO RESPONSES SERVED Date Motion served: June 29, 2020 Timely ANALYSIS: The opposition indicates that since the filing of the motion, on July 27, 2020, plaintiff

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PRISCILLA NAKAKURA VS USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE

CCP §§ 2030.290(b) and 2031.300(b) allow the propounding party to file a motion to compel responses to interrogatories and document demands if a response has not been received. If responses are untimely, responding party waives objections. (CCP §§ 2030.290(a) and 2031.300(a).)

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MIAO ZHANG, ET AL. VS AMERICAN EVERGLOW REGIONAL CENTER, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Section 2030.290(b) allows the propounding party to file a motion to compel responses to interrogatories if a response has not been received. If responses are untimely, responding party waives objections. (CCP § 2030.290(a).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PRISCILLA NAKAKURA VS USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE

CCP §§ 2030.290(b) and 2031.300(b) allow the propounding party to file a motion to compel responses to interrogatories and document demands if a response has not been received. If responses are untimely, responding party waives objections. (CCP §§ 2030.290(a) and 2031.300(a).)

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SEVAN MATATYAN VS MERCURY INSURANCE GROUP

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

MIAO ZHANG, ET AL. VS AMERICAN EVERGLOW REGIONAL CENTER, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Section 2030.290(b) allows the propounding party to file a motion to compel responses to interrogatories if a response has not been received. If responses are untimely, responding party waives objections. (CCP § 2030.290(a).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SYLVIA VERONICA SCOTT VS BURBANK UNITIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

. --- Standard of Review – Compel Interrogatories – A motion to compel responses to interrogatories may be brought where a responding party fails to timely respond to written discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290.) No meet and confer is necessary where a party fails to respond to written discovery. (See Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal. App. 3d 902, 906.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DEBORAH J WALTRIP VS AMERICAN AIRLINES, 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.” CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c). Cal.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ADRIAN RINCON VALLES VS HELEN GRAD

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

ANTONIO SARAGOZA VS COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

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

YONG HUN LEE, ET AL. VS JACOB RAFAEL MARTINEZ

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

ANGELA HOLQUIN VS FOOD 4 LESS CALIFORNIA, 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. (CCP §§ 2030.290(c), 2031.300(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.” (Id.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SYED M. HAMMAD RIZVI, ET AL. VS DILIGENT LENDING, LLC, ET AL.

Section 2030.290(b) allows the propounding party to file a motion to compel responses to interrogatories if a response has not been received. If responses are untimely, responding party waives objections. (CCP § 2030.290(a).) With these discovery motions, the Discovery Act does not require that the parties meet and confer before filing the motion. Furthermore, there is no time limit to file such a motion.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JACINTA POOK VS FIVE POINTS PLAZA, LLC

Five Points Plaza, LLC, et al MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS; MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (CCP §§ 2025.450, 2030.290, 2031.300) TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Five Points Plaza, LLC’s (1) Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Jacinta Pook and Request for Sanctions; (2) Motion For Order Compelling Plaintiff To Respond to Special Interrogatories; Request for Sanctions; and (3) Motion For Order Compelling Plaintiff to Respond to Request for

  • Hearing

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

IRENE HANSON VS AL AGUIRRE

Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290(b) allows the propounding party to file a motion to compel responses to interrogatories if a response has not been received. If responses are untimely, responding party waives objections. (CCP § 2030.290(a).) Sections 2023.010(d) and 2030.290(c) authorize the court to impose sanctions for failure to respond to discovery without substantial justification. On April 7, 2020, Plaintiff served her Special Interrogatories, Set Four, on Defendant.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 50     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.