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

101-125 of 1484 results

CENIGENT HEALTH ENHANCEMENT MEDICAL INSTITUTE VS DAN MINTZ

Accordingly, Plaintiff Cenigent Health Enhancement Medical Institute’s motion to compel production of documents from third parties in response to business records subpoena is DENIED AS MOOT. Moving party to give notice, unless waived. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 23, 2020 ___________________________________ Randolph M.

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DOROTHY CLARK VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS

Motion to Compel Defendant's unopposed motion to compel production of documents is GRANTED. Defendant served requests for production of documents ("RFPs) to Plaintiff on September 27, 2018. (Declaration of Lowhurst, ¶ 2 and Ex. A.) Plaintiff's responses were initially due on November 1, 2018. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.260.) Plaintiff asked for and Defendant granted multiple extensions. Plaintiff served no response.

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARGIANNE REYNOLDS VS RACHEL GARCIA, ET AL.

.: 19STCV04471 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION; DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION Dept. 31 1:30 p.m. January 22, 2020 Defendant has noticed Plaintiff’s deposition on multiple occasions. Plaintiff failed to appear at her properly noticed deposition on 11/14/19, and has not responded to communication attempting to reschedule the deposition.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2020

ROMULO CASIANO GOMEZ VS BMC STOCK HOLDING

BMC Stock Holding Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Intaktics, Inc.; Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 1987.1, §2025.480. The witness, Intaktics, Inc., is ordered to comply with the deposition subpoena for production of business records served on 10/9/19 within 20 days. Declaration of Matthew Mejia, ¶ 4, Ex. 1. The court may compel a witness’s compliance with a subpoena. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2020

BAKER VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION

Koon’s cell phone, or to compel production of documents at a deposition in July 2018 based on requests accompanying Mr. Alcala’s deposition notice, when plaintiff appears to have learned that Mr. Alcala was never asked by anyone at Caltrans to search for text messages related to plaintiff. (Phan Decl., ¶ 12.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2020

ROMULO CASIANO GOMEZ VS BMC STOCK HOLDING

BMC Stock Holding Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Intaktics, Inc.; Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 1987.1, §2025.480. The witness, Intaktics, Inc., is ordered to comply with the deposition subpoena for production of business records served on 10/9/19 within 20 days. Declaration of Matthew Mejia, ¶ 4, Ex. 1. The court may compel a witness’s compliance with a subpoena. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2020

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA VS. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS

Further, a motion to compel production of documents must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) As to the proper rate of reimbursement, it is equivalent to “the reasonable and customary value of their services.” (Children’s Hospital Central California v. Blue Cross of California (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1274.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2020

BRIAN DENMARK VS. GAMESCAPE PRIME, LLC

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPELPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FURTHER RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS [PLTF] BRIAN DENMARK RULING This matter was referred to the discovery facilitator program pursuant to Local Rule 1.13B. Thus, the court expects the matter will be resolved through facilitation. No party has filed its Declaration ofNon-Resolution with the court, as required by Local Rule 1.13 (H)(1).

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2020

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA VS. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS

Further, a motion to compel production of documents must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(b)(1).) As to the proper rate of reimbursement, it is equivalent to “the reasonable and customary value of their services.” (Children’s Hospital Central California v. Blue Cross of California (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1274.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2020

SARAY ROMERO VAZQUEZ ET AL VS HUNTER WAYNE LASSOS ET AL

TRIAL DATE: July 7, 2020 PROOF OF SERVICE: OK MOTION: Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Second Deposition of Defendants Affiliated Witnesses Mary Carnes and Matt Ikemoto and to Compel Production of Documents at Depositions; OPPOSITION: None as of January 8, 2020 (was due December 31, 2019) REPLY: N/A TENTATIVE: Plaintiffs’ motion to compel a second session of Carnes and Ikemoto’s deposition and further production of documents at deposition is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

WEBER GENERAL ENGINEERING V. CELL CRETE CORP.

Defendant Cell Crete Corp. moves to compel production of documents and an award of $1,345 in monetary sanctions. The proofs of service declare that on November 14, 2019 defendant/cross-complainant Cell Crete Corp. served notice of the hearing and the moving papers on plaintiff/cross-defendant Weber General Engineering and Suretec Indemnity Co. by mail. There is no opposition to the motion in the court’s file.

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2020

ENTRY VENTURES INC V. THE TEAM GROUP LLC

Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Entry Ventures The Team Group's motion to compel production of documents from Entry Ventures is granted. Entry Ventures shall produce all requested documents by Jan. 24, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ENTRY VENTURES INC V. THE TEAM GROUP LLC

Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Entry Ventures The Team Group's motion to compel production of documents from Entry Ventures is granted. Entry Ventures shall produce all requested documents by Jan. 24, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ENTRY VENTURES INC V. THE TEAM GROUP LLC

Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Entry Ventures The Team Group's motion to compel production of documents from Entry Ventures is granted. Entry Ventures shall produce all requested documents by Jan. 24, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ENTRY VENTURES INC V. THE TEAM GROUP LLC

Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Entry Ventures The Team Group's motion to compel production of documents from Entry Ventures is granted. Entry Ventures shall produce all requested documents by Jan. 24, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

VERNON DECK V HEATHER SUMMERBY

The Court denies the motion to compel production of documents and other request of Petitioner Vernon Deck and issues this tentative ruling so that the parties may meet and confer prior to the set January 8, 2020 hearing date in an effort to avoid the cost and expense of appearing in person or by way of Court Call on January 8, 2020, if they choose to so.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2020

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS LEAK CASES

Timeliness of the Motion to Compel LADPH argues that, by agreement of counsel, the last day for Private Plaintiffs to move to compel production of documents demanded in the subpoena was 30 days after LADPH’s last production of documents, or October 18, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2020

KARLA DE LA TORRE VS STEPHEN LENNON ET AL

CCP §2031.310 requires a party to show “good cause” when moving to compel production of documents from a party to the action. There is, however, no similar “good cause” requirement when a deposition subpoena is propounded on a non-party. A subpoena for the production of business records need not be accompanied by an affidavit or declaration showing good cause for production of the records. CCP §2020.410(c).

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2020

MONIQUE KAL MCCLENDON, ET AL. VS URBAN STREET PROPERTIES, INC., ET AL.

On October 4, 2019, the Court (1) granted leave to file an amended and supplemental complaint; (2) denied Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions; (3) granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of documents pursuant to subpoenas and sanctions. On October 24, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to request for production of documents.

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CENTAUR HOLDINGS II UNITED STATES INC VS XL INSURANCE AMERICA INC.

Motion to Compel Production of Documents by 3rd Party McLarens Plaintiff separately moves to compel production of documents from McLarens, who is not a party to this dispute. Plaintiff subpoenaed documents from McLarens. McLarens responded to the subpoena and, among other things, withheld documents on privilege grounds.

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2020

PARKER V. CHAMNESS BIODEGRADABLES, LLC

Parker and Ennovus Group, LLC Against Defendant Chamness Technology, Inc. for an Order (1) To Compel Answers, Without Objections, to Form Interrogatories; (2) To Compel Production of Documents and Written Responses to Demand For Production and Inspection of Documents and Things, Set No. 1; (3) Award Monetary Sanctions Against Chamness Technology Inc. 2. Motion of Plaintiffs Leonard M.

  • Hearing

    Jan 02, 2020

ERIC DAVIS VS. MERCED CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

Motion to Compel Response to Request for Production of Documents The motion by Defendant Merced City School District to compel production of documents is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion to compel production of communications between Plaintiff and Laura Torres is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to provide unreacted copies and metadata for all text messages between Plaintiff and Laura Torres by January 9, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Dec 26, 2019

  • County

    Merced County, CA

CENIGENT HEALTH ENHANCEMENT MEDICAL INSTITUTE VS DAN MINTZ

Plaintiff moves to compel production of documents from third parties New Hope Fertility Center and Dr. John Zhang. TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Cenigent Health Enhancement Medical Institute’s motion to compel production of documents from third parties in response to business records subpoena is CONTINUED to January 23, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. If Defendants object to any particular requests in the third-party subpoenas, they are to file a separate statement explaining their objections by January 9, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Dec 23, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CENTAUR HOLDINGS II UNITED STATES INC. VS XL INSURANCE AMERICA INC.

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION BY MCLARENS Plaintiff separately moves to compel production of documents from McLarens, who is not a party to this dispute on the ground that McLarens, from whom documents were subpoenaed withheld documents on privilege grounds without serving written objections or providing a privilege log. The motion is not accompanied by a separate statement in violation of Rule 3.1345(a)(5).

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2019

LYNETTE ASUR ET AL VS WALTER ALEXANDER BARRIOS-GIRON ET AL

Motion to Compel Production of Documents at Trial Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed. BACKGROUND On August 2, 2016, Plaintiffs Lynette Asur and Meir Asur filed a complaint against Defendant Walter Alexander Barrios-Giron, Eduardo Vicente Barrios, and Edmundo Escobar for negligence arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on August 5, 2014.

  • Hearing

    Dec 19, 2019

  « 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.