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

51-75 of 1484 results

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

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

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

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

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

    Mar 17, 2020

CHAE VS. LEE

Motion: To Compel Production of Documents. Moving Pary Plaintiff Young Chae. Responding Party Defendant Happy Pools, Inc., a California Corporation dba Home Plus. Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. A motion to compel must be served within 45 days after service of a verified response (extended if served by mail, overnight delivery or fax or electronically; see Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1010.6(a)(4), 1013, ¶ 9:87 ff.). Specifically, Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2020

CHAIM DERRY VS 99 CENTS ONLY STORES LLC

Defendant 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents in Deposition Notice and Request for Sanctions is PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2020

CHAE VS. LEE

Motion: To Compel Production of Documents. Moving Party Plaintiff Young Chae. Responding Party Defendant Happy Pools, Inc., a California Corporation dba Home Plus. Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied. A motion to compel must be served within 45 days after service of a verified response (extended if served by mail, overnight delivery or fax or electronically; see Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1010.6(a)(4), 1013, ¶ 9:87 ff.). Specifically, Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2020

FENNESSY V. ALTOONIAN

TENTATIVE RULING # 5: THE MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT TRIAL IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS STATED IN THE TEXT OF HE RULING. DEFENDANTS DE VINCENZI AND DE VINCENZI AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

GARCIA VS. SOUTH COAST GLOBAL MEDICAL CENTER

[CCP §2030.290] RULINGS: Defendant’s Motions to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, and to Compel Production of Documents are GRANTED. [CCP §2030.290] Plaintiffs are ordered to serve complete verified responses without objections within 15 days from the date of this hearing. Future Hearings: MSJ: 3/26/20 MSC: 11/20/20 Jury Trial: 12/21/20

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

MINOR K VS SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

Although Plaintiff argues that SDUHSD fails to identify the requests at issue, it is evident from SDUHSD's papers that SDUHSD seeks only to compel production of documents. Plaintiff offers no evidence to support the argument that "Plaintiff has provided Defendant with medical bills, invoices and explanation of benefits including those for recent treatments."

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MAGDALENO V. J AND V PROPERTIES, INC./LEAD CASE

Motions: Defendants J & V Properties and John Hovannisian’s motions to (1) compel response to interrogatories, (2) compel production of documents, and (3) deem matters admitted, and for sanctions Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion to compel and order discovery responses due within ten (10) days from the date of service of this order. To deem admitted the requests for admission.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

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

As to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents, Judge Glusman is unavailable to hear this matter on March 11, 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

    Mar 11, 2020

GEORGE KALO TRUSTEE OF THE GEORGE E. KALO AND RIMONDA KALO REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST VS 1-800-BATTERY INC.

Defendant Keller’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories re Marc , Lazo and H&L Holdings Group, Motion to Compel Production of Documents re Marc Lazo and H&L Holdings Group 4. Status Conference The ex parte motion seeking to continue these motions is denied. The court, however, on its own motion to accommodate its calendar continues these motions to April 10, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

WILLIAM BRAD MCALPIN VS GLEN OAKS ESCROW, INC

Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Motion for a Protective Order are reset for March 27, 2020 at 9:00 a.m.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  « 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.