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

DIGITECH BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, INC. V. REZARI

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Defendant/Cross-Complainant Advance Occupational & Hand Therapy Center’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Privilege Log is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff is ordered to provide further responses and produce documents to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (RPDs), Nos. 8, 15 and 31 within 10 days, and to provide a privilege log for any documents withheld on the ground of privilege within 10 days. Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

JASON ASHLEY VS TIMOTHY KREHBIEL ET AL

Rice (1) Resident’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents Moving Party: Defendant Resident, Joined by Defendants Timothy Krehbiel, Bridget Vagedes, and 428 S. Hewitt Street Partnership Responding Party: Plaintiff Jason Ashley Ruling: Resident’s motion is denied as to plaintiff’s original passports and loans, and granted as to plaintiff’s handwritten notes regarding his injuries, document entitled “Jason’s version of incident,” and the text messages included in the “Recent gossip” email.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

LUIS GOMEZ, ET AL. VS PATRICK CHAPMAN

AMAG’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents at Deposition AMAG moves pursuant to CCP section 2025.450 to compel Susana to comply with a deposition notice’s requests for production of documents. A.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

SVETLANA KAZARIAN ET AL VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

A motion to compel production of documents described in a deposition notice must be accompanied by a showing of good cause. (CCP § 2025.450(b)(1).) In other words, the moving party must provide declarations containing specific facts justifying inspection of the documents described in the notice. Courts liberally construe good cause in favor of discovery where facts show the documents are necessary for trial preparation.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

BC681300 Tentative Ruling re: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents at Deposition; Request for Sanctions Plaintiffs move to compel defendant Hannibal Classics, Inc. to produce all non-privileged documents responsive to Requests for Production Nos. 1 through 19 in the Amended Notice of Taking the Deposition of Defendant Hannibal Classics, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

HELEN AZADKHANIAN VS TRADER JOE?S COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiff seeks to compel production of documents in response to two categories of document requests: (1) witness statements and an incident report (RFP Nos. 1 and 2), and (2) previous claims and lawsuits (RFP Nos. 79-80). The parties participated in an IDC on January 15, 2020. RFP Nos. 1 and 2 seek witness statements and party statements regarding the trip-and-fall incident. In response to Plaintiff’s RFPs, Defendant identified and withheld a Confidential Report of Customer Accident (“Incident Report”).

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

KATZAKIAN V. SUN RIDGE RANCH HOA

production of documents by the HOA as they were not parties to the action or agents of the HOA when deposed; plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the current and former directors’ depositions expressly waived the attorney-client privilege in that the testimony did not disclose the substance of any attorney-client communications; plaintiffs only cite to testimony that acknowledges there were discussions with counsel which does not waive the privilege; the post-deposition limited waiver of the attorney-client

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

JALOMO V. ECLIPSE MESSENGER SERVICE, INC.

(Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Third Deposition of Defendant Eclipse Messenger Service, Inc.’s Person Most Knowledgeable (Opposition) filed on 3-11-20 under ROA No. 197; 2:12-13.) Although this argument was viable before the court closure, the Orange County Superior Court’s 5-29-20 Third Administrative Order No. 20/06 (Admin. Order) extended the discovery deadlines on civil cases. Paragraph 9(a) of the Admin.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

GVANTSA GIORGADZE VS ROBERTSONS ET AL

A motion to compel answers at a deposition and/or to compel production of documents at a deposition requires a separate statement, which is a separate document that provides all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses to it that are at issue. The separate statement must be full and complete so that no person is required to review any other document in order to determine the full request and the full response. (Cal. R. Court 3.1345.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

DAPHNE WHITE VS FOOD 4 LESS ET AL

Even if the Court were to reach the merits of the issue, however, the Court would deny the motion for the same reason it denies the motion to compel production of documents. B. Documents The scope of permissible discovery is broad.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA VS. CUZINS

The Plaintiff is directed to prepare and submit to the court a proposed order that sets forth this court’s three orders issued today on Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Adjudication, Plaintiff’s Motion for Monetary Sanctions, and the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents and for Sanctions.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA VS. CUZINS

HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COLLECTION SERVICE, INC. * TENTATIVE RULING: * See Line Item #9 above.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

EDITH ANNE PETRUCCI ET AL VS 7 ELEVEN DISTRIBUTION COMPANY

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER Based on the foregoing, Defendants Nu Mark LLC and 7-Eleven Distribution Company’s motion to compel production of documents is MOOT. Defendants Nu Mark LLC and 7-Eleven Distribution Company’s motion to compel answers is GRANTED. Plaintiff Edith Anne Petrucci is ordered to appear for deposition within twenty (20) days of notice of this order at a date, time, and location noticed by Defendants Nu Mark LLC and 7-Eleven Distribution Company.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SOUZA V. MID VALLEY SERVICES, INC.

To deny the motion to compel production of documents without prejudice. To deny the request for sanctions, since imposition of sanctions would be unjust. Explanation: When a party has not responded to Document Demands, a responding party waives all objections, including privilege and work product. (Code Civ. Proc. §2031.300.) There is no timeline on the motion and no need for a meet and confer. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ELMAS V. LIPOSEC

The plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents and further responses. The motion was originally set for April 9, 2020. However, the notice of motion in the file indicates the original date was crossed out and the matter re-set for June 18, 2020. It is unclear from the proof of service attached whether the served motion showed an April 9 or a June 18 motion date. The defendants failed to file opposition. On June 15, 2020, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-Opposition.

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2020

MARTIN V. STATE CENTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

Moreover, a motion to compel production of documents described in a deposition notice must be accompanied by a showing of "good cause" - i.e., declarations containing specific facts justifying inspection of the documents described in the notice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(b)(l).) The moving papers do not address good cause for production of documents or things relating to any particular document request.

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KATZAKIAN V. SUN RIDGE RANCH HOA

production of documents by the HOA as they were not parties to the action or agents of the HOA when deposed; plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the current and former directors’ depositions expressly waived the attorney-client privilege in that the testimony did not disclose the substance of any attorney-client communications; plaintiffs only cite to testimony that acknowledges there were discussions with counsel which does not waive the privilege; the post-deposition limited waiver of the attorney-client

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

JENSEN V. VAN NOORD

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents. Defense counsel declares: requests for production were served on plaintiff; unverified responses were served by plaintiff’s counsel; no documents were produced despite extensions of time; and efforts at meeting and conferring were ignored by plaintiff’s counsel. Defendant moves to compel production of all documents responsive to the requests, further depositions of the persons noticed, and an award of monetary sanctions in an unspecified amount.

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

GENASCI V. MACRAE

Plaintiff moves to compel production of documents without objections and to deem admitted requests for admission. Plaintiff further requests an award of monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,950 and the terminating sanction of striking defendant’s answer and entry of defendant’s default. The proofs of service in the court’s file declare that on January 30, 2020 notice of the hearing and copies of the moving papers were served by mail on defense counsel.

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

BAUGH V. GREENVIEW ASSETS

“Given the symmetry of section 2030, subdivision (l) and 2031, subdivision (l), we conclude that the time within which to make a motion to compel production of documents is mandatory and jurisdictional just as it is for motions to compel further answers to interrogatories. ¶ We agree with the qualification expressed in Standon Co. v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

FRANK ALVAREZ VS HOME DEPOT U.S.A, INC. ET AL.

To attend the remote hearing with Judge Kronlund in Dept. 10-D: Call into (209) 992-5590, then follow the prompts and use the Bridge # and Pin # as follows: Bridge # 6940 Pin # 3782 Tentative Ruling Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents is Denied. Defendant Home Depot served its responses 4 days prior to their due date, but served the responses inadvertently at Plaintiff's former address.

  • Hearing

    Jun 09, 2020

FLEXEN V. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA

Without evidence, the court cannot compel production of documents that defendant swears under penalty of perjury do not exist. (See Holguin v. Superior Court (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 812, 820.) Plaintiff’s requests for terminating, issue, or evidentiary sanctions and a daily preemptive fine is denied. The court would have ordered defendant to pay monetary sanctions, had plaintiff asked. Defendant shall give notice. Motion to Compel PMK Deposition Plaintiff’s motion to compel PMQ deposition is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2020

RANDOLPH, TERESA VS TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY ET AL

As to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents, Judge Glusman remains unavailable to hear this matter on May 20, 2020. The Court's Minute Order from January 29, 2020 does not provide the specific rulings given in relation to the discovery matters and there is no transcript of the proceeding. Therefore, this Court intends to rule as follows: Plaintiff has identified the following Requests to which she seeks further response: 33, 37, 63, 64, 67, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, and 87.

  • Hearing

    May 20, 2020

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA VS. CUZINS CONCORD COACH, LLC

HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COLLECTION SERVICE, INC. * TENTATIVE RULING: * This case involves a suit for $18,158.31 that presents the prospect of becoming a “Frankenstein’s Monster” of civil litigation involving more costs and attorney fees than are justified by the relatively small amount in dispute. Plaintiff (Northern California Collection Service) is the assignee of California’s State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF).

  • Hearing

    May 18, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

JANE DOE VS ORLANDES FLETCHER, III, ET AL.

.: 19STCV10260 Matter on calendar for: Motion to Compel Production of Documents (Non-Party) Tentative ruling: Background Plaintiff Jane Doe alleges that she was admitted to room 410 at Defendant Martin Luther King Jr. Community Hospital (“MLKCH”) on November 12, 2018 for sickle cell anemia treatment. A nurse, identified as Defendant Orlandes Fletcher III, allegedly injected her with illicit drugs and used her resulting helplessness to rape her.

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

  • Judge

    Salvatore Sirna or Gary Y. Tanaka

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 58     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.