What is a Motion to Compel Production of Documents?

The demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance if the responding party “fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party's statement of compliance....” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.320(a); see also Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(a) (“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action... fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”).)

How to Structure the Motion

If a motion seeks to order the deponent to produce documents listed in the deposition notice, then the motion must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electrically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(b)(1).)

A party demanding the production of document to move for an order to compel further responses if:

  1. a statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete,
  2. a representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive, and
  3. an objection in the response is without merit or too general.

...The motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.

(Code of Civ. Proc. § 2031.310)

The California Rules of Court do not require the moving party to file a separate statement in connection with the distinct motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 to compel the deponent to appear for examination. (Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).)

Response

The Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.260(a) provides that within 30 days after service of a demand for production of documents the party to whom the demand was directed shall serve a written response to the party making the demand. The Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.250(a) provides that the response shall be verified. Further, the Code of Civil Procedure, section 2031.280(b) requires the party to whom the demand for production was directed to produce the requested documents by the date specified in the demand unless an objection has been made to that date.

Useful Rulings on Motion to Compel Production of Documents

Recent Rulings on Motion to Compel Production of Documents

LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC VS COUNTY OF LA

County of Los Angeles, Judge Mary Strobel Hearing: November 24, 2020 BS172865 Tentative Decision on Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Further Responses to Discovery Petitioner Los Angeles Times Communications LLC (“Petitioner” or “The Times”) moves to compel Respondent County of Los Angeles (“Respondent” or “County”) to produce further responses and documents in response to Petitioner’s special interrogatories, set one and request for production, set one.

  • Hearing

ARTHUR AMBARACHYAN VS GEORGE PLAVJIAN, ET AL.

.: EC068660 Hearing Date: November 20, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: (1) motion to quash deposition subpoena for production of business records for u.s. bancorp; and (2) motion to compel production of documents contained in plaintiff/cross-defendant’s notice of deposition of the person(s) most knowledgeable BACKGROUND A.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ACCUARDI VS CERAMIC PRO LLC

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant's Motion to Compel Production of Documents is GRANTED. The sales documents requested are relevant to support plaintiff's claims for damages. Restricting access to "attorney eyes only" is counterproductive as plaintiff's knowledge and interpretation of the data would be necessary. However, the Court respects the concern of Defendant and orders that the data only be used for calculation of damages.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

WU VS WU

The motion of Defendants Shun-Shou Wu and Fang-Luan Wu to compel production of documents by non-party United One Realty, Inc. ("United") (ROA 82, 135, 176) is denied. The subpoena was not personally served on the deponent. CCP § 1985.3(b)(1).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

WU VS WU

The motion of Defendants Shun-Shou Wu and Fang-Luan Wu to compel production of documents by non-party United One Realty, Inc. ("United") (ROA 82, 135, 176) is denied. The subpoena was not personally served on the deponent. CCP § 1985.3(b)(1).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

WU VS WU

The motion of Defendants Shun-Shou Wu and Fang-Luan Wu to compel production of documents by non-party Show-Ling Chen (ROA 86, 134, 175) is granted. On 4/15/20, Defendants served a business records deposition subpoena by mail on non-party Show-Ling Chen. The documents were to be produced on 5/5/20. Objections were served 5/4/20 and the parties met and conferred.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

WU VS WU

The motion of Defendants Shun-Shou Wu and Fang-Luan Wu to compel production of documents by non-party Show-Ling Chen (ROA 86, 134, 175) is granted. On 4/15/20, Defendants served a business records deposition subpoena by mail on non-party Show-Ling Chen. The documents were to be produced on 5/5/20. Objections were served 5/4/20 and the parties met and conferred.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

DUAL DIAGNOSIS TREATMENT CENTER VS. HEALTH NET, INC., ET AL

[Tentative] Ruling Sovereign’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Response to Sovereign’s Sixth Set of Requests for Production (Request Nos. 212-217, 220-234) is GRANTED, in part. EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS Plaintiffs submit the following evidentiary objections to the Declaration of Sherman Card in Support of Health Net’s Opposition to Sovereign’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Response to Sovereign’s Sixth Set of Requests for Production: Objections 1, 2, and 3 are overruled.

  • Hearing

CALWEST PRIME CORP., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS GARMENT LINE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

TRIAL DATE: None PROOF OF SERVICE: OK MOTION: Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Garment Line, Inc. OPPOSING PARTIES: Plaintiffs, Cal West Prime Corp. and CJ & K, Inc. OPPOSITION: October 22, 2020 REPLY: October 28, 2020 TENTATIVE: Garment Line’s motion to compel further responses to two requests to produce is moot. Garment Line’s request for sanctions is denied. Plaintiffs are to give notice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ALVAREZ VS. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

The request to compel production of documents is DENIED.

  • Hearing

WATKINS VS. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC

Ruling: Plaintiff Carmen Watkins’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. For the documents to be produced, Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. shall respond without objection and produce the documents within twenty (20) days. For Nos. 2, 7 11, 49, 53, 55 & 67, these Requests relate directly to Plaintiff’s vehicle. These documents shall be produced.

  • Hearing

SAN DIEGO PATIENTS COOPERATIVE CORPORATION INC VS RAZUKI INVESTMENTS LLC

s motion to compel production of documents pursuant to subpoena of documents to non-party Far West Management, Inc. is granted, in part. Far West represents that it has no further documents in response to the sixteen requests in the subpoena. The court orders Far West to file and serve a declaration by November 20, 2020, from the person most qualified and/or custodian of record indicating, under penalty of perjury, no further records were found.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

HTL AUTOMOTIVE INC VS PACIFIC LIFT AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY INC

Before the Court are two motions: a motion to compel production of documents at deposition and a motion to set aside HTLP’s default on the cross-complaint. On June 1, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to compel production of documents at the deposition of HTL’s PMK Hooman Nissani. On July 8, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a request for continuance because the Secretary of State suspended them.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MR BUILD HOME IMPROVEMENT COMPANY D.B.A. MR BUILD SOLAR ELECTRIC VS CALIN KEELEY

PRESENTATION: Defendant filed the motion to compel production of documents, motion to compel form interrogatories – employment, and motion to compel form interrogatories – general on July 31, 2020. No opposition or reply has been received by the Court.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ANA HERNANDEZ, ET AL. VS WESTERN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

., Case No. 19STCV32566 Tentative Ruling re: Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions Defendant Western General Insurance Company (Defendant) moves for sanctions against Plaintiff Hernandez and her counsel of record for failing to comply with the Court’s ruling granting Defendant’s motion to compel production of documents on August 26, 2020. The motion is granted. The full range of discovery sanctions is available where there is a failure to comply with a court order compelling discovery. (Code Civ.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MATTER OF ARTHUR J WALKER JR AND HELEN A WALKER TRUST

Also on July 28, 2020, respondents filed this motion to compel production of documents pursuant to the Beckman and Delio subpoenas. On September 16, 2020, respondents filed a supplement to the Walker Petition. On September 22, 2020, Collison filed a supplement to the Collison Petition.

  • Hearing

ROMERO VS CENTURY DESIGN INC

Plaintiff Gemma Romero brings this motion to compel production of documents. Plaintiff served Defendant Century Design, Inc. with a Demand for Production of Documents on April 29, 2019. Defendant served code-compliant responses nearly a year later, on April 13, 2020. In defendant's responses, defendant asserted objections based on attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

ABDULLAH VS DILLON CORPORATION

Therefore, Meyer's motion to compel production of documents is GRANTED. The court orders Plaintiff to produce all responsive documents within 10 days of this ruling. Meyer's motion for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. CCP § 2031.300(c). The court reduces the sanctions sought by $420.00 ($210.00/hr x 2 hours) because of the substantial duplication between this motion and Meyer's other pending discovery motions against Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ROMERO VS CENTURY DESIGN INC

Plaintiff Gemma Romero brings this motion to compel production of documents. Plaintiff served Defendant Century Design, Inc. with a Demand for Production of Documents on April 29, 2019. Defendant served code-compliant responses nearly a year later, on April 13, 2020. In defendant's responses, defendant asserted objections based on attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

CATHLEEN MCCALL VS MALETZ

Plaintiff Cathleen McCall's motion to compel production of documents from Charles Maletz is granted in part and denied in part. It is not clear from defendant Charles Maletz's responses whether any documents have been withheld from production on the basis of privilege or for any other reason. As such, Charles Maletz is ordered to provide verified further responses in which he states in plain and simple language whether any documents have been withheld from production.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CARMEN TORRES VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS

Motions to compel production of documents from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the non-party deponents unless they agree to accept service by mail at an address specified “on the record.” Cal Rules of Court 3.1346. The proof of service indicates the motion was served by mail on the non-party deponent.. Accordingly, the motion is procedurally defective. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

LAUREN B. VS KF COMMUNITY CARE, LLC, ET AL.

For these reasons, Community Care’s motion to compel production of documents is denied. Conclusion Community Care’s motion to compel production of documents is DENIED. Defendant is to give notice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

JARED LIEBERS VS CASEY WINTERS, ET AL.

Compel production of documents Plaintiff requests that the court compel defendant to produce documents specified in the deposition notice for Casey Winters’ deposition notice dated January 23, 2020. Plaintiff explains that the deposition notice included 26 categories in the request for production. On January 14, 2020, defendant served objections.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DEREK GRASTY VS SOUTH WHITTIER SCHOOL DISTRICT, A SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

Plaintiff Grasty’s motion to stipulate motion to compel production of documents is DENIED. Opposing Party to give NOTICE. Plaintiff Grasty moves to compel Defendant’s responses to interrogatories, request for admissions, and production of documents pursuant to CCP § 2030.210-2030.310. Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA WEST INC VS CITIZEN JANE PRODUCTION

The appellate court in its opinion, certified for publication and filed on January 3, 2020, denied Dalessandro and Levine’s petition challenging the motion for compel production of documents and affirmed the imposition of $3,456.70 in sanctions against Levine.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 63     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.