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

1426-1450 of 1488 results

PAUL K LIU ET AL VS. SALLY L LIU ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Reopen Discovery And Compel Production Of Documents; Declaration Of Thomas Eastridge Set for hearing on Friday, September 2, 2011, line 1, PLAINTIFFS PAUL LIU AND CINDY LIU'S Motion To Reopen Discovery And Compel Production Of Documents. PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY GRANTED. PLAINTFFS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS GRANTED. IF THEY HAVE NOT YET BEEN PRODUCED, THEY MUST BE PRODUCED BY SEPTEMBER 7, 2011. PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS DENIED. =(302/LMG)

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2011

PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. ET AL VS. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP ET AL

Notice Of Motion To Compel Production Of Documents On Pltfs' Privelige Log Set for hearing on Monday, August 15, 2011, line 3. DEFENDANT PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP AND PAULA WEBER'S Notice Of Motion To Compel Production Of Documents On Plaintiffs' Privilege Log. Defendant's motion to compel is granted in part. Any communications from Mr. Wilkenson to Panda or its officer and employees that pass along advice provided by Defendant must be turned over to Defendant. Requests for sanction are denied.

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2011

MARC GONZALEZ VS. PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY ET AL

Plaintiff Marc Gonzalez'S Notice Of Motion To Compel Production Of Documents At Deposition, And For Monetary Sanctions Set for hearing on Tuesday, August 9, 2011, line 5. Plaintiff Marc Gonzalez'S Notice Of Motion To Compel Production Of Documents At Deposition, And For Monetary Sanctions. OFF CALENDAR, CASE SETTLED. =(302/LMG)

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2011

MARC GONZALEZ VS. PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY ET AL

Notice Of Motion To Compel Production Of Documents At Deposition, And For Monetary Sanctions Set for hearing on Monday, August 8, 2011, line 3. PLAINTIFF MARC GONZALEZ'S Notice Of Motion To Compel Production Of Documents At Deposition, And For Monetary Sanctions. CONTINUED TO 8/9/11 TO BE HEARD WITH MSJ. = (302/REQ)

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2011

EARL MINNIS VS CHRIS MILLER

Motion to Compel Further Response to Request for Production of Documents: Plaintiff moves to compel production of documents. He served a request for production of 35 categories of documents to be produced at the office of plaintiff’s counsel. The first 31 seek any and all documents that support defendant’s 31 affirmative defenses.

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2011

PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. ET AL VS. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP ET AL

Notice Of Motion To Compel Production Of Documents On Pltfs' Privelige Log Set for hearing for Thursday, July 21, 2011, Line 7. DEFENDANT PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP AND PAULA WEBER'S Notice Of Motion To Compel Production Of Documents On Plaintiffs' Privilege Log. Defendant's motion to compel production of Documents on Plaintiff's privilege log is Granted.

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2011

PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. ET AL VS. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP ET AL

Notice Of Motion To Compel Production Of Documents On Pltfs' Privelige Log Set for hearing on Friday, July 15, 2011, line 5, DEFENDANTS PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP, PAULA WEBER Motion To Compel Production Of Documents On Plaintiffs' Privilege Log. DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ON PLAINTIFFS PRIVILEGE LOG IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PRIVILEGE LOGS SPECIFYING THE EXACT NATURE OF THE COMMUNICATION AND WHY THE PRIVILEGE APPLIES.

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2011

LEADERS IN COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVES, INC. VS. G4S JUSTICE SERVICES, INC. ET AL

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DENIED. THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES IN THIS CASE. REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS BY BOTH PARTIES DENIED. =(302/LMG)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2011

PATRICK NESBITT ET AL VS MONTECITO WATER DISTRICT

Ex Parte Application to: 1) Compel Production of Documents; 2) Supplement Incomplete Record; and 3) Continue Trial Date On Friday, June 24, 2011, the court denied petitioners’ ex parte application to compel production of documents, supplement the record and continue the hearing on the petition for writ of mandate.

  • Hearing

    Jun 28, 2011

PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. ET AL VS. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP ET AL

Notice Of Motion To Compel Production Of Documents On Pltfs' Privelige Log Set for hearing on Tuesday, June 28, 2011, line 3. DEFENDANT PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP, PAULA WEBER'S Motion To Compel Production Of Documents On Plaintiffs' Privilege Log. Continued to July 11, 2011 on the court's motion. =(302/LMG)

  • Hearing

    Jun 28, 2011

WING WO MA VS. JUN TAN ET AL

Defendant/cross complainants' motion to compel production of documents is granted. Corporate books and records are relevant to the alter ego allegations. Moreover, they are not protected under the attorney-client privilege or attorney-work product privilege. The California Constitution does not protect a corporation's right to privacy to its financial records. The court directs the parties to submit proposed protective orders. The insurance policy also falls under the scope of authorized discovery.

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2011

STACIE IVERY ET AL VS. WALGREEN COMPANY ET AL

Notice And Motion To Compel Production Of Documents In Response To Request For Production Of Documents, Set Three, Number 33 Set for hearing on Wednesday, June 15, 2011, line 1, DEFENDANT WALGREEN CO., IMPROPERLY SUED HEREIN AS WALGREEN Motion To Compel Production Of Documents In Response To Request For Production Of Documents, Set Three, Number 33. GRANTED, NO OPPOSITION FILED. PLAINTIFF TO PAY DEFENDANT $1080 IN SANCTIONS WITHIN 15 DAYS OF NOTICE OF ENTRY OF THIS ORDER. =(302/EHG)

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2011

PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. ET AL VS. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP ET AL

Notice Of Motion To Compel Production Of Documents On Pltfs' Privelige Log Set for hearing on Friday, May 27, 2011, line 4. DEFENDANT PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP, PAULA WEBER'S Motion To Compel Production Of Documents On Plaintiffs' Privelege Log. Continued to June 28, 2011 on the court's own motion. =(302/LMG)

  • Hearing

    May 27, 2011

STEVEN PAPPAS VS DOREEN FARR

By these motions, Pappas seeks to compel production of documents to which defendant and her counsel object. The requests at issue are as follows: “Copies of all invoices in the possession of your campaign committee for legal services rendered related to your election contest with Steven Pappas.” (Request to Farr, request 2.)

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2011

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. A NATIONAL BANKING VS. U.S. PARKING INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL

Notice And Motion To Compel Responses To Interrogatories, Compel Production Of Documents, And Have Requests For Admission Deemed Admitted; Request For Monetary Sanctions Set for hearing on Friday, April 29, 2011, line 3. PLAINTIFF BANK OF AMERICA, NA'S Motion To Compel Responses To Interrogatories, Compel Production Of Documents, And Have Requests For Admission Deemed Admitted; Request For Monetary Sanctions. Off calendar. No proof of service or courtesy copies.

  • Hearing

    Apr 29, 2011

1700 CALIFORNIA HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE ET AL VS. TANIA TREDINNICK PEGGS ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Moiton To Compel Production Of Documents Set for hearing on Wednesday, March 23, 2011, line 4. DEFENDANT HENRY FOURCADE, JR.'S Motion To Compel Production Of Documents. Grant as to all requests. Plaintiff is required to create a privilege log as to materials it deems confidential and privileged. Both requests for attorney's fees denied. =(302/PHA)

  • Hearing

    Mar 23, 2011

1700 CALIFORNIA HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE ET AL VS. TANIA TREDINNICK PEGGS ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Moiton To Compel Production Of Documents Set for hearing on Wednesday, March 16, 2011, line 2. DEFENDANT HENRY FOURCADE, JR'S Motion To Compel Production Of Documents. Continued to March 23, 2011 on the court's own motion. =(302/PHA)

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2011

HEAREE "HEDDIE" CHU VS. JAMES D. POPE ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Production Of Documents And Written Responses To X-Deft'S Demands For Inspection And Production Of Documents On X-Complainants James Pope And Pope And Pope Properties Llc; And For Monetary Sanctions Set for hearing on Friday, March 4, 2011, line 3.

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2011

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. VS. RANDOLPH & HEIN, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Production Of Documents And For Sanctions Set for hearing on Tuesday, December 28, 2010, line 3. DEFENDANT RANDOLPH ARCZYNSKI'S Motion To Compel Production Of Documents. GRANTED, NO OPPOSITION FILED. Request for sanctions denied, insufficient notice. CCP 2023.040. = (302/EHG)

  • Hearing

    Dec 28, 2010

JOYCE TREVILLIAN VS TONI SCHUSTER ET AL

Production of documents With respect to the motion to compel production of documents, plaintiff contends that she has or will produce every document in her possession, but that she simply does not have many documents, having left them behind when she vacated her residence at defendant’s request. There are several problems with this contention. First, the response which was provided stated that all documents responsive and not privileged would be produced.

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2010

PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. ET AL VS. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP ET AL

Notice Of Motion To Compel Production Of Documents Set for hearing on Friday, December 3, 2010, line 6, DEFENDANT PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP, PAULA WEBER'S Motion To Compel Production Of Documents. PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE A PRIVILEGE LOG TO DEFENDANT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF THIS ORDER. MOTION DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS. =(302/CWW)

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2010

PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. ET AL VS. PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP ET AL

Notice Of Motion To Compel Production Of Documents Set for hearing on Tuesday, November 30, 2010, line 3. DEFENDANTS PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN, LLP, PAULA WEBER'S Motion To Compel Production Of Documents is continued to December 3, 2010 on the court's own motion. =(302/CWW)

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2010

KENDRA TOMCIK DR ET AL VS. SIDNEY FERNALD DR ET AL

PLAINTIFF KENDRA TOMCIK and CONNIE TOMCIK's Motion Of plaintiffs' To Compel Production Of Documents. GRANTED, No opposition filed. Defendant to pay plaintiffs $1352.50 in sanctions. = (302/CWW)

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2010

BENNETT COHEN VS. BOURHIS & MANN, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Production Of Documents And For Sanctions Set for hearing on Friday, November 19, 2010, line 2. PLAINTIFF BENNETT COHEN'S Motion To Compel Production Of Documents And For Sanctions is granted. Sanctions of $1,500 awarded. =(302/PHA)

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2010

KAO XIONG VS. THE WACKENHUT CORPORATION A FLORIDA CORPORATION ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Production Of Documents Set for hearing on Wednesday, November 17, 2010, line 4. PLAINTIFF KAO XIONG'S Motion To Compel Production Of Documents is continued to December 1, 2010 per agreement of parties. =(302/PHA)

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2010

  « first    1 ... 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.