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

76-100 of 1488 results

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

LEON, ET AL. V. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.

Hearing on motion to compel production of documents off-calendar per 2/28/2020 Order.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

LUIS PINEDA VS MODERN INTERIORS

Compel Production of Documents Defendant states that on February 19, 2020, it produced all of the at-issue documents that Plaintiff requested. (Dioguardi Decl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff does not dispute this assertion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents is DENIED AS MOOT.

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JENSEN V. VANNOORD

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 and further requests an award of monetary sanctions in an unspecified amount.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

HAMLET MINASVAND ET AL VS MARTIN MINASYAN

Compel Production of Documents The motion does not mention, but seeks relief under CCP§ 2025.480, which provides, in pertinent part: “(a) If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CHRISTINA GARCIA VS REHENDRA PATEL, ET AL.

This is a motion to compel further responses, not a motion to compel production of documents. A motion to compel further responses is governed by CCP §2031.320. A motion to compel production of documents is governed by §2031.330. If Defendants believe production is at issue, they must file a motion under §2031.330. The responses are code-compliant, and there are no further responses to compel at this time. The motion to compel is therefore denied.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RONALD LEE DUNN VS INTERMODAL BRIDGE TRANSPORT, INC., ET AL.

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION RELEVANT BACKGROUND The operative pleading is Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint, which was filed on July 24, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ANDREA SCHERBEN VS MAN ON THE MOON PRODUCTIONS, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION INC, ET AL.

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM THIRD PARTY (CCP § 1987.1) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Third-Party is DENIED. In addition, Defendants’ request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $620.38 to be paid within thirty (30) days of service of notice of this order.

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

UMG RECORDINGS SERVICES INC VS ROK MOBILE INC

Motion to Compel Production of Documents A motion to compel compliance as agreed with a request for production of documents is based upon a showing that the respondents failed to failed to permit an inspection ‘in accordance with that party's statement of compliance.’" (Standon Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1990) 225 Cal. App. 3d 898, 903; Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).) ROK agreed to produce documents months before it decided to dismiss its cross-complaint. The motion is granted.

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2020

CRANE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS JP RODRIGUEZ PAINTING CONTRACTORS, INC.

Defendant and Cross-Complainant JP Rodriguez Painting Contractors, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Subpoenaed Non-Party Deponent and Request for Sanctions is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Feb 25, 2020

CHARLES KUTA V. COLORTOKENS, INC.

Additionally, Kuta explains that the arbitrator in his coworker, Shastri’s unlawful termination case against ColorTokens has concluded that ColorTokens may not compel production of documents involving Linkaj after May 2018, when Kuta and his coworkers involved in Linkaj were terminated from ColorTokens. This court agrees with Kuta that communications relating to Linkaj that occurred after Kuta was terminated are not relevant to ColorTokens’ claims of unclean hands and after- acquired evidence.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

BLOOMFIELD LAW GROUP, INC. VS. ELISABETH THIERIOT

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL — RESPONSES; OR, TO REOPEN DISCOVERY [DEFT] ELISABETH THIERIOT RULING The motion to compel production of documents is granted, in part. Plaintiff Bloomfield Law Group, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

LUPE VASQUEZ ET AL VS FASTRANS SHUTTLE LLC ET AL

Plaintiff also moves the Court for an order to compel production of documents. Plaintiff’s Notice contains 36 document requests. The Court finds Plaintiff set forth sufficient specific facts showing good cause justifying the production of requested documents. CCP §2025.450(b). Accordingly, the motion to compel production of documents is granted. Plaintiff seeks sanctions against Defendant and its attorneys of record in the amount of $2,160.00. Sanctions are mandatory. §2025.450(c).

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

TAPIA ARELLANO VS SOUTHCOAST WELDING & MANUFACTURING LLC

Williams did not consider a motion to compel production of documents nor the disclosure of even more private information – payroll records. The parties have already met and conferred regarding a Belaire-West notice; however, they disagree on the content of the Belaire-West notice. Defendant suggests for the records at issue, which involves more than contact information, the notice should require an employee to opt-in to have their records disclosed.

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

TAPIA ARELLANO VS SOUTHCOAST WELDING & MANUFACTURING LLC

Williams did not consider a motion to compel production of documents nor the disclosure of even more private information – payroll records. The parties have already met and conferred regarding a Belaire-West notice; however, they disagree on the content of the Belaire-West notice. Defendant suggests for the records at issue, which involves more than contact information, the notice should require an employee to opt-in to have their records disclosed.

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ALEXANDRA BRUNELL VS UBER TEHNOLOGIES INC

CASE NO: BC699297 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PMK; GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF TRACEY BREEDEN; DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Dept. 31 1:30 P.M. February 13, 2020 Plaintiff served a Notice of Deposition on Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) on October 3, 2019. The Notice indicated an intent to depose Tracey Breeden – Uber’s Head of Women's Safety & Gender-based Violence Programs. It was noticed for October 21, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TAPIA ARELLANO VS SOUTHCOAST WELDING & MANUFACTURING LLC

Williams did not consider a motion to compel production of documents nor the disclosure of even more private information – payroll records. The parties have already met and conferred regarding a Belaire-West notice; however, they disagree on the content of the Belaire-West notice. Defendant suggests for the records at issue, which involves more than contact information, the notice should require an employee to opt-in to have their records disclosed.

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

BARBARA SCHLICK VS SAFEWAY INC

.: BC669043 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION; DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION; IMPOSING SANCTIONS Dept. 3 1:30 p.m. February 10, 2020 Defendant has noticed Plaintiff’s deposition on multiple occasions. The parties agreed to continue the deposition several times, and ultimately the deposition was scheduled for 12/23/19. Plaintiff failed to appear at her properly noticed deposition on 12/23/19.

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2020

VIDEO TECH SERVICES, INC. D/B/A/ VTS SERVICES, A NEVADA CORPORATION VS THOMAS D. WOOLSEY, ET AL.

Woolsey Motion to Compel Production of Documents The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. RULING The motion is CONTINUED to March 18, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. Plaintiff is ordered to file a notice of related cases in both SC105947 and the herein case forthwith. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the ruling.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STESHENKO V. DE ANZA COLLEGE

ORDERS ON MOTIONS OF PLAINTIFF TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF MONTEREY PENINSULA AND NATIVIDAD MEDICAL CENTER NO TENTATIVE RULING This Court notes that this action was filed on 17 October 2017. This Department intends to comply with the time requirements of the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act (Government Code, §§ 68600–68620).

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2020

SMARTRISE ELEVATOR SERVICE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS 18049 COASTLINE DRIVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., A CALIFORNIA COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED, ET AL.

Defendant Stephen Maine moves to compel production of documents and for sanctions. TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Stephen Maine’s motion to compel production of documents is DENIED. Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED. DISCUSSION: Motion To Compel Production of Documents Although Defendant’s hearing reservation was for a motion to compel discovery (not further discovery), a motion to compel further discovery is, in fact, what Defendant should have filed.

  • Hearing

    Feb 03, 2020

SEO VS. PARK

Furthermore, no statute or case law providing that a party can bring a motion to compel production of documents in order to enforce a Corporations Code § 1601 request has been cited. As a result, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion as it is procedurally defective. Defendant SC&P shall give notice. Pending Motions/Ex Parte The Court notes that there are at least 9 additional pending discovery motions and a pending ex parte application to advance some or all of these motions.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

  « 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.