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

26-50 of 1484 results

SARAY ROMERO VAZQUEZ ET AL VS HUNTER WAYNE LASSOS ET AL

If Plaintiffs’ believed that Almquist’s production of documents was then insufficient, they should have brought a motion to compel production of documents at deposition. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480 subdivision (b), a motion to compel further responses to requests for production in connection with a deposition notice must be made no later than 60 days after the “completion of the record” of the deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480 (b).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

VALENCIA VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC

In addition, a motion to compel production of documents in a deposition notice must be accompanied by a showing of “good cause”, such as in a declaration containing specific facts justifying inspection of the documents described in the notice. Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450(b)(1). Plaintiff counsel’s declaration does not specify any facts in support of the existence of good cause. Sanctions are denied.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

MOJAB V. LINEBERGER, ET AL.

The Court vacates the July 31, 2020 hearing for Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition of OCFA’s PMK and the August 21, 2020 hearings for Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents, response to requests for admissions, and further responses to special interrogatories as to OCFA. The Court hereby sets a status conference as to the appeal (Court of Appeal case number G059068) for February 19, 2021 at 9 am in this Department.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

HTL AUTOMOTIVE INC VS PACIFIC LIFT AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY INC

On June 1, 2020, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel production of documents at the deposition of HTL’s PMK Hooman Nissani. No opposition was filed. Legal Standard Service of a proper deposition notice obligates a party or “party-affiliated” witness (officer, director, managing agent or employee of party) to attend and testify, as well as produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying. (CCP § 2025.280(a).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ZIV BAHAT, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

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. Here, good cause is shown for the document requests.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

JEREMIAH CASAS VS THE HOPS LLC, ET AL.

Accordingly, the motion to compel production of documents is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to serve supplemental responses within 15 days. Sanctions: CCP §§ 2023.010(d), 2030.290(c), and 2031.300(c) authorize the court to impose sanctions for failure to respond to discovery without substantial justification. CCP § 2033.280 makes the imposition of sanctions mandatory if a party fails to serve a timely response to requests for admission.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BLEU BROOKE LLC VS KAY CESENA

BC711897 Tentative Ruling re: Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents; Request for Sanctions Defendant Kay Cesena moves to compel the production of documents withheld by cross-defendant Arciga at her deposition. The motion is denied. Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

FELIZ VS THE COUNTY OF ORANGE

Under these circumstances, leave to amend is unwarranted. (2) Defendants’ Motion to Strike the First Amended Complaint is MOOT given the ruling the demurrer. (3) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents and for Monetary Sanctions is MOOT given the ruling on the demurrer. Defendants are ordered to give notice of these rulings.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

ROUGHAN & ASSOCIATES AT LINC, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS DEBORAH PERLMAN

Motion to Seal Records of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Perlman’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents, Set One Plaintiff moves to seal the following records relating to its Opposition to Defendant Perlman’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production, Set One: · Opposition o Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Deborah Perlman’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents, Set One; Points and Authorities; Declaration of Ryan T.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

ROUGHAN & ASSOCIATES AT LINC, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS DEBORAH PERLMAN

Motion to Seal Records of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Perlman’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents, Set One Plaintiff moves to seal the following records relating to its Opposition to Defendant Perlman’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production, Set One: · Opposition o Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Deborah Perlman’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents, Set One; Points and Authorities; Declaration of Ryan T.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

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

LOUIS HUITRON, ET AL. VS CARL CHUDNOFSKY

SERVICE: [X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK (both) [X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK (both) [X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK (both) Motion to Compel Production of Documents OPPOSITION: None filed as of July 1, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None REPLY: None filed as of July 1, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None Motion for Terminating Sanctions OPPOSITION: None filed as of July 1, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None REPLY: None filed as of July 1, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None ANALYSIS: Background

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NOEMI BETANCOURT GUSMAN ET AL VS SUMMIT CARE LLC ET AL

A motion to compel production of documents "shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand." CCP § 2031.310(b)(1). To establish "good cause," the burden is on the moving party to show both relevance to the subject matter and specific facts justifying discovery. See, e.g., Kirkland v. Superior Court, 95 Cal. App. 4th 92, 98 (2002).

  • 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

CONSULTING INC V SIMPLE RECOVERY, LLC

Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223-224 (motion to compel production of documents must be supported by factual evidence by way of declarations setting forth specific facts justifying each category of materials sought to be produced; arguments in a separate statement or in briefs are insufficient).) Here, Plaintiff’s evidence of good cause is marginally sufficient.

  • 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

WILLARD MAYNARD VS AMAZON.COM, INC. ET AL.

(Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230) Defendants’ motion to compel Production of Documents, Set Two, Nos. 1 through 3, is granted. (Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280) All objections are waived. (Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230) Plaintiff shall provide proper verified responses to all requests within ten court days. Defendants’ motion for an order that the matters specified in Defendants’ request for admissions, Nos. 1-20, be deemed admitted is granted.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

(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

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 60     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.