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

226-250 of 1481 results

GALAM VS OPITZ

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 (Weil & Brown §8:801.2; CCP §2025.450(b)(1)).

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2019

FREDDY BURAYE VS JOAN RIDLER

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant moves to compel production of documents and for sanctions. TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Freddy Buraye’s motion to compel production of documents is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART in the total amount of $660 against Defendant’s attorney of record Larry Haakon Clough, Esq., and Law Offices of Larry Haakon Clough only. (Total of 2 hours @ 300/hr. Plus $60 filing fee.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2019

DAPHNE SMITH V. GGP, INC., ET AL.

production of documents at deposition.

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2019

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO. VS. PROFESSIONAL BUILDER

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENA Moving Party: Plaintiff Navigators Specialty Insurance Company Responding Party: Defendant Professional Builders, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2019

DE LA CRUZ VS. HCR MANORCARE

* TENTATIVE RULING: * Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents and privilege log is denied. The Court has reviewed the extensive file and the comprehensive recommendations of Discovery Facilitator John Warnlof. The Court agrees with Mr. Warnlof’s assessments and adopts his findings. The defense complied with Mr.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2019

ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY CO VS JOHN ESGUERRA

SUBJECT: (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (3) Motion to Compel Production of Documents Moving Party: Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company Resp. Party: None The motion to compel responses to form interrogatories is GRANTED. The motion to compel responses to special interrogatories is GRANTED. The motion to compel responses to request for production of documents is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

VITO ROBERTO VS FCA US LLC

On June 4, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition of the person most knowledgeable and granted in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents in relation to the deposition. On April 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant four motions to compel further discovery responses.

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2019

JONES VS THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY

A motion to compel production of documents and things directed to a party must show good cause for the production of the disputed documents. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1)). This requires specific evidence of good cause, showing relevance to the subject matter, and specific facts justifying the discovery. (See Glenfed Develop. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117; Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98).

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2019

DIAZ-MARTINEZ VS. MERLAN

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents Plaintiff Macrina Diaz-Martinez moves for an order: (1) compelling Defendant DISH Network California Services Corp. to serve a further response to the first set of requests for production of documents and produce responsive documents within 20 days; (2) compelling DISH to comply with the stipulated protective order proposed by plaintiff; and (3) imposing a monetary sanction of $5,010 against DISH and its attorneys of record.

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2019

TEAM MAKENA, LLC VS. LASSO

Appellants filed a motion to compel production of documents in February 2011 for a subpoena that was served in July 2004 on a third party, Bizcom. (Id. at p. 1191.) Bizcom produced documents and served objections on 8-27-04. (Ibid.) A second subpoena was served in 2006 and Bizcom served objections to the second subpoena on 4-14-06, and produced the documents requested on 5-1-06. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2019

ZAYAS V. HCR MANOR CARE SERVICE, LLC

Based on Plaintiff’s (Ana Maria Zayas) Notice of Withdrawal of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents and the Deposition of the Person Most Knowledgeable of Manor Care of Fountain Valley CA, LLC (filed on 7-31-19), Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Actual Production of Documents and the Deposition of the Person Most Knowledgeable of Manor Care of Fountain Valley CA, LLC (filed on 5-24-19), scheduled for hearing on 8-20-19, is off calendar.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2019

JACKIE ONEAL USHER VS WHITE COMMUNICATIONS LLC [E-FILE]

Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. At issue are service provider agreements with every contractor company in California covering the putative class period. The Special Interrogs request a list of companies that DirecTV Had Service Agreements with. DirecTV has provided contracts related to White Communications – the direct employer in this case.

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

DISCUSSION: Motion To Compel PMK Deposition and Production of Documents Plaintiff seeks to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable and to compel production of documents pursuant to the deposition notice. The Court agrees with Defendant that this motion is untimely.

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2019

JACKIE ONEAL USHER VS WHITE COMMUNICATIONS LLC [E-FILE]

Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Responses to Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. At issue are service provider agreements with every contractor company in California covering the putative class period. The Special Interrogs request a list of companies that DirecTV Had Service Agreements with. DirecTV has provided contracts related to White Communications – the direct employer in this case.

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JOHN FELACTU VS J.K. RESIDENTIAL SERVICES INC ET AL

Motion to Compel Production of Documents at Deposition of Anil Mehta The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. RULING The motion is GRANTED. Anil Mehta is ordered to appear for deposition and to produce documents in response to the request for documents contained in the deposition notice at a mutually agreeable place and on a mutually agreeable date and time.

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SOBINA INC VS FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY

SUBJECT: (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories (2) Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories (3) Motion to Compel Production of Documents (4) Motion to Deem Request for Admission Admitted Moving Party: Defendant Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan Responding Party: Plaintiff Sobina, Inc. Defendant’s motion to compel responses to form interrogatories is DENIED as moot. Defendant’s motion to compel responses to special interrogatories is DENIED as moot.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2019

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CAROLE SIEGEL VS ROBERT HERMAN VOGEL

Where a party seeks to compel production of documents listed in a deposition notice that party must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(b)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2019

DOE VS. ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

Moreover, plaintiff fails to establish good cause to compel production of documents related to a group of individuals who are not parties to this action and whose alleged relevance to this case goes completely unexplained. Defendant Anaheim Union High School District is ordered to give notice of the rulings unless notice is waived.

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2019

VICTORIA SUZAN CANNON VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC

SUBJECT: (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (2) Motion to Compel Production of Documents (3) Motion to Deem Request for Admission Admitted Moving Party: Plaintiff Victoria Suzan Cannon Responding Party: None Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to production of documents is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted request for admission admitted is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2019

VICTORIA SUZAN CANNON VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC

SUBJECT: (1) Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories (2) Motion to Compel Production of Documents (3) Motion to Deem Request for Admission Admitted Moving Party: Plaintiff Victoria Suzan Cannon Responding Party: None Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses to production of documents is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted request for admission admitted is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2019

MCKENZIE VS ISERVE RESIDENTIAL LENDING LLC

The Motion (ROA # 42) of Plaintiff POORAN MCKENZIE ("Plaintiff") for an Order, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2031.310, et seq. to compel production of documents against Defendant iSERVE RESIDENTIAL LENDING, LLC ("Defendant), and for monetary sanctions, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court has read and considered Plaintiff's Complaint and notes that Plaintiff's employment lasted seven (7) years from September 2010 to September 2017. Paragraphs 5 - 17.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BUNK V. MOLNAR, ET AL.

The court orders counsel to meet and confer prior to the continued hearing with the understanding that the court will not compel production of documents not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. If all disputes regarding the requests for production are not resolved through meet and confer, counsel for both parties are to submit supplemental pleadings regarding the requests for production that remain in dispute. Such pleadings are due by June 25, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2019

ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY V. KB HOME SOUTH BAY, INC., ET AL.

In its notice of motion, KB Home states that its motion to compel production of documents is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2031.010, 2031.020, and 2031.300. (Ntc. Mtn., p. 1:21-22.) First and foremost, there is no such thing as a motion to compel production of documents responsive to requests for production of documents.

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2019

  • Judge

    Mark H. Pierce

  • County

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

DARIN BARIONI VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents is GRANTED. There appear to be two issues. Plaintiff requested production for documents up to 10 years prior to the incident. In general objections, defendant City limited production to 5 years prior instead of 10. The Court finds that plaintiff's request for document production 10 years prior to the accident is appropriate. The City has also redacted individual names and contact information.

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DARIN BARIONI VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents is GRANTED. There appear to be two issues. Plaintiff requested production for documents up to 10 years prior to the incident. In general objections, defendant City limited production to 5 years prior instead of 10. The Court finds that plaintiff's request for document production 10 years prior to the accident is appropriate. The City has also redacted individual names and contact information.

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  « first    1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 60     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.